Talk:William Lofland Dudley

Aurora Borealis

Chemistry is likely my worst academic subject. From what I understand, Dudley was praised for explaining that the aurora borealis was neon gas, while today it's known not to be neon but work via the same process as a neon light, which is probably the point which Dudley got praise for elucidating. Please do clean this up if you can; to any interested, the man's scientific work leaves no shortage of material for the scientifically inclined. Cake (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Lofland Dudley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 05:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few things read awkwardly, but nothing terrible.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fine. Maybe a bit of overlinking here and there, though.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Appears fine; some are not available for me to check.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None noted.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Quickfail. Too much close paraphrasing from [1], above and beyond the quoted/attributed material.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This isn't a problem.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The overly detailed football coverage about games played in fields named after the subject, years after his death, do not belong in the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Appropriate.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All appear to be in order.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images of a CO molecule, a football player who played under his administration, and a festival which he helped lead are tangential at best. In this case, less might be more.
	7. Overall assessment.	Quickfail due to the close paraphrasing, which is entirely inappropriate. The rest will get a cursory evaluation as a courtesy.

While I do not quick fail things lightly, the fact that the nominator appears to be the one who has engaged in the close paraphrasing really don't leave me any other choice. With regrets, Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. All good points. No hard feelings about the fail. I would not submit it for review if its passing were guaranteed. Dudley is one of the more interesting guys whom I have tried to beef up on wikipedia. My interest with the sporting figures has me attempt to struggle with the chemistry. There are apparently quite a few chemists in the history the sport, such as Knute Rockne, but I digress. Will try to pare down his football legacy, and avoid plagiarizing Traughber (not the intention of course, but it shows my need to review the sources if nothing else). Hopefully then it can attract more. Cake (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

this, leaving aside the direct quotes which are appropriately attributed, should give you a guide to where the close paraphrasing hits. See WP:Close paraphrasing for more tips and guidelines--when copying large amounts of stuff from one site, it often takes conscious effort to reframe and rephrase things entirely, rather than just rearranging and rejiggering a thing or two. Since that site lists a 2005 publication date, I doubt it's adapted from an article started in 2014. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a great tool. The English is probably even clumsier now, but hopefully ~50% seen by a computer is enough to avoid the charge. Cake (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Fiachra10003 (talk · contribs) 23:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article reads quite well at this point and has no obvious grammatical errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Appears fine; some are not available for me to check.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None noted.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Close paraphrasing from [2] that previously existed has been removed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This isn't a problem.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The overly detailed coverage about football games has been clarified.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Appropriate.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All of the images appear validly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images were simplified versus the initial GA review.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, the article has improved greatly and appears qualified as a good article.