Talk:Nicholas U. Mayall

Good Article Review - October 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicholas U. Mayall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• Sorry I didn't get to the requested peer review fast enough. Besides the small number of sources, I think this is within shooting distance though, and that you can make enough fixes and this can stay on the GA nominations for at least a week or so while you do so. It does need a few things:
  1. That's awfully few sources for a good article. More sources help to reach NPOV and improve accuracy if used properly. Try getting something through interlibrary loan if you can.

     I have Stone, Irving (1970). There was light: Autobiography of a university: Berkeley, 1868-1968. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. pp. 107–20. on order from the library and have begun to cite it using Google snippets. WilliamKF (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  2. The lead section is too short per WP:LEAD it should be 2-3 paragraphs that properly summarize the most important information from the rest of the article.

     The lead is now three paragraphs and attempts to follow the guidelines in summarizing the article. WilliamKF (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  3. The 120 inch section gives too much history not related to Mayall, it's hard to even see how he is important enough in the telescope to warrant that being a section in his biography. If indeed he is, the section should be refactored to make that clear and his role in it should be the focus of the section.

     I've added an introductory paragraph, which I hope helps, but I imagine more work is needed. WilliamKF (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  4. The first paragraph of the Postwar section refers to "the Crossley", but we don't really know what it is. Presumably it is the Crossley Reflector linked in the next paragraph, but the context should be where the term is first used and where it is re-used prominently in the first use in a section.

     I think I have addressed this, let me know if it still needs looking at. WilliamKF (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

     Now it specifies what Crossley, but doesn't give any more context. Also the beginning of the next paragraph is redundant with the first and they need some narrative arc to make the section work together cohesively. - Taxman ^Talk 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

     I've tried to address these points, hopefully it is clear now. WilliamKF (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall it is quite good. The sources may be the hangup depending on how much time you have to dedicate to it. - Taxman ^Talk 19:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• What's there is good, but it's just not enough references to ensure verifiability and NPOV. Generally even B class articles have substantially more references and I don't think it's fair to keep it on hold for longer. Also I had assumed there was some other person named Nicholas Mayall and that's why this article name has the middle initial in it, but when I checked there wasn't. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) generally calls for just first and last, so the article should probably be moved to Nicholas Mayall. - Taxman ^Talk 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  Still waiting for the book from inter-library loan. WilliamKF (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  No worries. Some people just get uptight if GA noms stay on hold for very long. See what other high quality sources you can find and use the one you have on the way and then see where that gets you. - Taxman ^Talk 13:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  Received inter-library book today and added numerous cites. Is this sufficient, or do I need to track down more? WilliamKF (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer Review - October 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nicholas Mayall

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like it to be either a Good Article or a Featured Article, whichever is thought to be more appropriate.

Thanks, WilliamKF (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Review by Ruslik.

1. The article has good sources and is comprehensive, but needs a copy-edit.

   Submitted request for copy-edit. WilliamKF (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

2. For instance, I do not understand what glass disk in Pasadena that was planned to test the 200-inch (5.1 m) Palomar mirror means.

   The cite states: In Pasadena he had seen the 120-inch glass disk originally intended for testing the 200-inch Palomar mirror, then nearly finished in the Caltech optical shop. So I believe it means that the glass was used to test the shape of the mirror. WilliamKF (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

   Found this: You make the mirror out of a plate glass disk or Pyrex glass disk. WilliamKF (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

   Fixed myself. Ruslik_Zero 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

3. The last section (Retirement) should be expanded to include information about his death and the place of burial (and also about his wife's death).

   Added info on spreading his ashes and death from diabetes. WilliamKF (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

4. I think that at some places there are to many inline citations—5 at the end of Kitt Peak National Observatory section.

   Another reviewer indicated I needed more citations to become a Good Article. I'm inclined to leave them, I reduced a few though. WilliamKF (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

5. After copy-edit the article can easily become featured.

Ruslik_Zero 09:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Featured Article Review - November 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:34, 12 December 2009 [1].

---

Nicholas Mayall

Nominator(s): WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is in great shape, stable and complete. WilliamKF (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 2c. Comment, noting there are no problems with 1c but, I'm not qualified to support science biography on 1c terms. 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Citing the other Encyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

2c: Please see Talk: 2c there are a few fiddle issues left, but its mostly resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1c all problems resolved with 1c 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC):

Surely we can do better than to cite facts to " a b Encyclopædia Britannica 2009". Tertiaries by non-specialists aren't highest quality sources.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple alternative cites for the two Britannica cites, so I don't think this is an issue. Plus, earlier reviewers requested more cites be added, hence that was one which was added. WilliamKF (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am really quite unhappy about this. Dog doesn't eat dog, and your reviewers may have been correct in their time about the density of citations, but citing the Other Encyclopedia is bad form in a Featured Article. Also, its not authored by a specialist so its not HQRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have removed the Britannica cites. WilliamKF (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments

• No dab links or dead external links.
• All images have alt text. I think the alts are excellent, except for the third one (would it be obvious from seeing the image alone that the large yellow structure is a telescope? See WP:ALT#Verifiability).

--an odd name 05:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Nicholas U. Mayall.jpg - No source (NFCC#6/NFCC#10A/WP:IUP), not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and no rationale (NFCC#10C)

    Non-commercial educational use only is not okay? WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

    Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is not a purpose, but a description. A rationale should explain why the image is necessary (its purpose) and be specific and detailed (NFCC#10C and WP:FURG). Эlcobbola _talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

    Purpose now reads Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included. If this is not sufficient, I would appreciate more direction, or better yet, another to edit the purpose further. The fair-use seems self evident to me. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    It's still not there. What you're trying to accomplish is to articulate to the reader what understanding the image is intended to convey. You say "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly", but not why that is the case ("because the article is about the subject of the photo and has no other pictures of this individual included" is a non-sequitur; it discusses the article, not the image). The "Purpose writing" section of this dispatch may be helpful. Typically images depicting deceased individuals in this manner (infobox) have purposes generally summarized as "to facilitate identification of a notable individual". (i.e. Why is the image being included? So the reader can visually identify the subject.) Эlcobbola _talk 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    I've updated it again to now read: "This image depicts the appearance of Nicholas Mayall. His appearance is used in this article to facilitate identification of Mayall by the reader. Mayall is a notable deceased individual with few known photographs, none of which are known to be free sources." Please assist directly if this is not sufficient as you seem to have a clear idea of what is needed here. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    That's sufficient. I was not in a position to write the purpose as I didn't upload or insert the image and, therefore, had no knowledge of its intended purpose. I commented on the typical purpose I see for such images and what was presumably the case here, but you may well have been going for something completely different. The Iwo Jima flag example in that dispatch, for instance, demonstrates how one image can have any number of purposes. Эlcobbola _talk 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • File:NicholasMayallAtTelescope.jpg - Same issues as previous image and, in addition, appears purely decorative (NFCC#8) Эlcobbola _talk 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

    I disagree that it is purely decorative. It adds a photo of Mayall later in life and shows him at the telescope named in his honor, seems appropriate to me. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Have lowered resolution and posted rationale to image page. WilliamKF (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

    How is his appearance later in life relevant to the reader's understanding of the man? If seeing the telescope is important, as a device still in existence, a free alternative could be created (NFCC#1). The telescope may well have been meaningful to Mayall, but the threshold is a significant contribution to a reader's understanding (NFCC#8). What understanding of either Mayall or the telescope is conveyed? (Purpose of "It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual" is identical to the above image. NFCC#3A requires minimal use; why would two images be needed to depict Mayall?) Эlcobbola _talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

    Removed. WilliamKF (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • File:Tololo b.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. Transferred from en.wiki isn't sufficient. Is David walker indeed the author (presumably the case), or merely the uploader, as is currently stated? Эlcobbola _talk 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

    The page states: Description: Taken by David Walker while flying... Isn't that sufficient? WilliamKF (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    My comment wasn't phrased well. The author field should be updated to avoid confusion. When articles are compiled (for example, hitting the "Download as PDF"), the information from this line is fetched for the credit appendix. As is, Walker will be credited only as the uploader, as the summary line does not carry over. Эlcobbola _talk 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

    Done. WilliamKF (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

    Please ping Elcobbola for feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Gregory ref in your sources lacks a last access date.
• Lindsley ref in your sources lacks a publisher.

  Done. WilliamKF (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. For future reference, at FAC, practice is to let the person bringing up the concern strike it when they feel it is resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. I have already seen the article when it was going through the peer review. I think it is a comprehensive and well sourced. After a copy-edit that I recommended the quality of prose also improved considerably. The only suggestion that I have now is to expand the lead. At 1.5 paragraphs it seems to be rather short. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think the prose is adequate to meet the FA standard. A few examples:

• "Mayall hoped to join the Mount Wilson team upon getting his doctoral, ...". Should be "doctorate", and "getting" is too informal.

• "... the only time in his adult life that he resided other than in California and Arizona". California or Arizona.

• "Mayall and other young faculty at Lick thought that older Moore and Wright were too complacent with the small telescopes and should have tried harder to attain a larger reflector." Very strangely written. Complacent with? Should that be "obtain" instead of "attain"?

• "Unbeknownst to Mayall ...". What kind of a ten dollar word is "unbeknownst"?

• If there isn't a rule against using templates like {{convert}} in section titles then there damn well ought to be.

• This prohibited him from observing small color changes ...". It didn't prohibit him, it prevented him.

• "... found the Milky Way had about one half the mass as previously thought." Why "as previously thought"?

• "... argued to Sproul". I've never seen argue used in that way before; usually one argues with, or about, not to.

• "Doing most of their work by letter, Mayall began by convincing the others ...". So Mayall was doing most of the committee's work?

• "Surviving Mayall were his widow, Kathleen Boxall, his wife for 58 years." The plural "were" implies that he left behind an unnamed widow plus a wife of 58 years.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed all the above identified prose issues. If more remain, please let me know. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs looking at, as there are innumerable other examples. From the lead, for instance: "Mayall also spent 11 years as director of the Kitt Peak National Observatory, where he shepherded it and the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory into top research observatories". I'm really not sure what this is trying to say, but whatever it is it's being said rather awkwardly. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It now says 'guided' instead of 'shepherded', hopefully that is clearer. How can we identify the remaining issues? WilliamKF (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't what you want to hear, but you need to try and find someone to do this kind of thing to the whole article; it's not just changing the odd word that's needed. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to find someone. Thanks for your helpful edits. WilliamKF (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony1's offered some good general advice, which is to look at similar FAs and try to persuade their editors to help out. You've written a good, informative account of Mayall's life and work, but you can't be expected to do everything. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good Article Review - October 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicholas Mayall/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Modest Genius ^talk 15:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary: This is a well-written article which is close to meeting the GA criteria. I have some issues which need addressing, and all but one should be quick and easy to fix.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is generally good, but much of the early material is unclear to anyone who doesn't know the ins and outs of the American education system. I've fixed some items with links, and dropped a bunch of {{what}} tags at places that need clarification. e.g. 'mid terms' should mention that these are exams.
   I fixed all the instances of WP:WTA I found. References should go before Bibliography, per WP:LAYOUT. wait, that's a list of works. I'll rename the section accordingly.

   I think I've got these all handled now. WilliamKF (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Referencing in general is very good. There are one or two {{cn}}s that need addressing. Sources seem reliable, and I can't see any obvious OR.

   Fixed the citation needed items. WilliamKF (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is mostly fine for GA. I suggest adding his discovery of globular clusters around M31, which is widely cited [2]. It would be nice to expand the KPNO section, and the previous section on research on Lick to a lesser extent, but they're fine for GA.

   Add Mayall II discovery. I have not found much material on the KPNO nor research on Lick other than what is already present. If you can refer me to any other sources, I'd love to use them to expand these sections, but there doesn't seem to be much out there on these. WilliamKF (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images mostly seem fine, with appropriate sources and a fair-use rationale for the single image that requires it. File:HST G1 (Mayall II).jpg needs to include the credit line given on the Hubble site ('Michael Rich, Kenneth Mighell, and James D. Neill (Columbia University), and Wendy Freedman (Carnegie Observatories) and NASA'). It would be nice to have more images, but fine for GA.

   Credit applied to HST image. What other images do you imagine adding? If you give me some ideas, I can search for them. WilliamKF (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

   I added a few images, feel free to remove or rearrange as you see fit. Modest Genius ^talk 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Other comments:

Are Sigma Xi and Phi Beta Kappa really 'awards'? Could these not be incorporated into the prose at the relevant point when he joined them?

In addition to the above, I have one major concern: the article, and in particular the first version, is extremely similar to the Osterbrock article. So similar in fact that my first impression was that it had simply been copy-pasted and then rephrased to avoid anyone spotting the copyright infringement. I'm amazed that no-one has noticed this before (which makes me wonder whether anyone else actually checked the sources). Is there some explanation for this? Modest Genius ^talk 17:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Osterbrock article was the first source used to create this article and it has always been widely cited to account for that, it was not copied, but used as a reference, and originally as the only reference. Over time additional sources have been located and used to expand the article further. WilliamKF (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm still not happy, because copyright subsists not just in the exact words used but the sequence of presentation etc. However, I'm no expert on this, and everything else meets the GA requirements. I'm going to list this as GA, but in future don't go following sources quite that closely (and don't be surprised if someone else picks up on this in the future). Modest Genius ^talk 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Placed on hold for a week pending the above requested changes. Modest Genius ^talk 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Promoted. Modest Genius ^talk 16:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.