Talk:William T. Stearn

GA/FA Log

Project to raise to GA status commenced 20 November 2016. Nominated 5 January 2017.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

For pre-promotion version see here. Note that he never received either of the degrees listed there. That sentence was added by a discredited ISP, without a source, 1 October 2014.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Promoted 7 February 2017 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for FA 24 February 2017 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Promoted to FA 31 March 2017 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits reviewed 25 February 2018, and accepted or corrected. Errors mainly due to bots --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits reviewed 9 April, queried addition of Peter Raven by Pat D Raven (his wife - Patricia Jane Duncan Raven) on 20 March. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 15:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HalfGig (talk · contribs) 21:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The quality of refs is good but formatting is inconsistent; "General books and articles" has some retrieve dates, some done--books and articles don't need retrieve dates

   True - articles with accessdates were articles on web - removed--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   Some "Websites" refs have publishers, some don't; all should have publishers.

   That does not really work - many of the websites are publishers, or there is no information. Duplication would add unnecessary clutter. Publishers were added where available. Do you have specific examples?--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   I never saw it done like that IIRC. But you are consistent and that's the big thing. I just put in the publisher if it matches the web URL. HalfGig talk 23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

   NEW ONE "Geograph (2011). "Geograph". Geograph Project Limited." needs a retrieval date. All web refs need this so people can check the version you used, know when it was a live URL, etc. HalfGig talk 23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

   Done - yes, wanted to avoid duplication of names and hence clutter--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   NEW TWO It appears Stearn never earned a university degree. Is this correct? If so, very impressive as to what he accomplished. HalfGig talk 11:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, one of the things he is famous for. When I came across the original stub and saw a string of degrees after his name, which I knew to be wrong, I was motivated to rewrite it and eventually develop it. This is now the most comprehensive biography of this man in the literature. (with the exclusion of personal anecdotes) --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   Image in the info box needs source, etc, not just a link to RU wiki; it also needs a FU rationale

   Source provided on Russian WP added. It does have a paragraph addressing Fair use Rationale. Can you be more specific?

   I did eventually manage to track down some more provenance information and converted the file information into a Non-free use rationale infobox, if that helps --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   Good work. HalfGig talk 23:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

   Natural History Museum London Jan 2006.jpg needs a date

   Unsure what you mean here - in the caption? Why this image rather than others? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   over in its summary/description box on commons, it's empty. It's supposed to have the date the photo was taken, some mistakenly put in the date uploaded

   Oh! Commons, I thought you meant the article. Yes, the date is is in the metadata - fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   Epimedium alpinum (Flower).jpg needs a date

   As above --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   over in its summary/description box on commons, it's empty. It's supposed to have the date the photo was taken, some mistakenly put in the date uploaded

   fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   Agnes Arber circa 1916.jpg might be PD by now

   Quite possibly. The original author does not supply any copywrite information. Are you suggesting any specific action? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

   Nah, it's probably PD-life+70 now but we can't tell so I'd leave it alone HalfGig talk 23:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

This is pretty impressive, but I'll treat this as if it were an FAC candidate.
First pass

• There is some overlinking, if you haven't done so, run the script

I had, but ran again and took out a couple. I didn't see many, if one excepts the per section principle and also linking images. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Don't use fig in your text, since this is a web page, if people add or remove images, they will have to renumber your images and text. I've never seen this in an FA or GA, the captions should suffice.

Obviously I do find them useful, in linking text to images, especially in long articles, as I would in published books and articles. In high quality articles I would expect subsequent editors to respect the structure. However I have removed them as requested. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• education in both Latin and Greek. Link Latin and, presumably, Ancient Greek

Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Mr Eastwood, his biology teacher,[7] who recognised his talents, and became secretary of his school Natural History Society is ambiguous, maybe split sentence?

Agree, done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• However, Stearn; you can't start a section with "However"!

Actually, while debatable, you can. [Oxford Dictionary] --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• You sometimes have four or five refs in the same place, looks a bit like overkill

Agree. With a large number of edits and restructuring together with the requirement to end a paragraph with a citation tends to push them to the end. I have limited them to 3. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• With characteristic humility; even if your source says this, remember that obituaries are not intended to give a balanced view, best left out. Check other facts sourced to the obit with de mortuis nihil nisi bonum in mind to make sure opinions are defensible

OK, although numerous commentators made this point both in life and after death. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• don't link sovereign countries, which you do inconsistently anyway

That's because MOS says "major", not all. I see Jamaica, Greece, Nepal, Bhutan, Canary Islands. Most of those are because the text refers to an aspect of their geography of flora. Which would you take out? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My problem is that "major" and "minor" are value-loaded. Jamaica and Greece may be minor from a US or UK perspective, they are not if you live in Kingston or Athens. In my FAs, I never link sovereign states, although I would link the Canaries as a region of a country. Other editors link all countries. I'm not keen on a subjective view of which countries matter and which don't, but in the end it's your choice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I realise it could be seen that way, but that was not my guidance. I just pointed out the wording in MOS which is not black and white. My decision was based on whether you want to encourage the reader to go there to make more sense of the text. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Visiting Professor" isn't capped in linked article

Ok. Of the various sources that refer to his appointments, usage is inconsistent. What I have done is use lc for reference to appointment but UC when used as part of a title. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll have another look in the next couple of days, and double check images and sources, although your GA reviewer seems to have addressed most issues. After that, I think it should be nominated at FAC, where other reviewers will doubtless find more nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I'm out all day today, but I'll have a final read through on Thursday while the storms rage, and assuming no unexpected problems emerge, i would think you are ready to nominate at FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, just realised you were referring to Storm Doris. Hope you came through unscathed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Aa77zz, a very experienced FAC reviewer, has picked up a couple of points I missed, I can't see anything else. I suggest that you nominate at WP:FAC as soon as you are ready, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - will do so. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent review, User:Jimfbleak. I can't find anything wrong with this. Note I didn't run Earwig's or check images. HalfGig talk 12:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

HalfGig, at FAC, you can review as much or as little as you wish. Most editors comment on the text, some prefer to do image or source reviews (earwig isn't compulsory), at least one just reviews and supports on the quality of the prose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I ran earwig - mainly found citations! And all the other GA and FA tools. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/William T. Stearn --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Name

Was he really principally known as William T. Stearn? There are more references to W. T. Stearn in the article and William T. is a rare formulation in BrEng. If the current article name is the preference of an American editor it should be corrected, per MOS:TIES. Spicemix (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not American! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Useless!

Yes, useless (but with a golden star). It is completely hopeless to try to read the article an find a reference (you have to click around and click around and you won't get back to where you started from). When you finally, if ever, find the reference you have forgotten what you wondered about. This article might be good (regarding the contents) but it really sucks when it comes to availability. So, either fix the references-mess or take away that misplaced golden star. Episcophagus (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It is really too much to complain about what is an excellent article, with so much to say about such a wonderfully gifted and productive individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.41.187 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

WT:Today's featured article/April 2024#william t. stearn

Just a pointer to some questions about the article at the TFA blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

flower shows

the article mentions that stearn "regulary attended RHS flower shows even after he was barely able to walk". is this accurate? if he was still attending shows after he was barely able to walk, this would appear to mean that he was attending them even when he could not walk, in which case, it may be more clear to state that instead. alternatively, it seems possible that what was meant was that stearn was still attending these shows even when he was barely able to walk. dying (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please add his private life

William Stearn married, in 1940, Ruth Alford; they had a son and two daughters. Clean Arlene (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I see it's already there but quite well hidden away. Clean Arlene (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made a separate section, possibly clumsily, on his wife.

I feel that it is important to emphasize that learned people often have wives and husbands. Clean Arlene (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)