Talk:Thomas Hawkes Nash III
Latest comment: 3 years ago by J Milburn in topic GA Review
 | Thomas Hawkes Nash III has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 26, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Hawkes Nash III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I may as well make it a triple! Happy to offer some comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- "13 November, 1945" I don't think the comma's needed, but you should probably use American dates for an American biographhy
- Kept the comma and changed to American mdy formatting. Esculenta (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Effect of Effluents from a Zinc Factory on Lichens" I think PhD theses are meant to be italicised; they'll count as a "major work".
- "monograph of Hypotrachyna" on, surely?
- Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- And, as with the other articles, I want to ask about the use of small caps.
- Now replaced with small font. Esculenta (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
No concern about the pictures (top picture's great) or sources. I'll dig a little deeper next time I look, but no real concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- And please check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- The copyedits look fine, thanks. I'm not sure the reason for the ref=none additions, could you explain? Should I do this in other articles as well? Esculenta (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's very boring, and is something to do with editing scripts. There was a technical change a few months ago, so now all uses of certain citation templates are ready for use with {{sfn}} -- but what that means when they're not used with that template, error messages pop up (to some editors -- I forget why we see them). Once, we had to add ref=harv if we wanted to use the sfn template, but now that they are "harv" refs by default, we need to add ref=none if we're not using the sfn template to avoid the errors. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I can't see anything else to cause concern. Promoting now. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)