Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James E. Boyd (scientist)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain 20:44, 8 March 2011 [1].

James E. Boyd (scientist)

[edit]

James E. Boyd (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a delightfully cited and comprehensive biography. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, still leaning oppose because it still needs copy-editing/cleanup. Also, referencing format should be more consistent. Looking better, though - keep up the good work! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose at this time, although I'm open to revisiting once the below issues are addressed.[reply]

  • WP:OVERLINK - don't link the same term multiple times, especially in close proximity
  • Better, although there are still some extraneous links - extra occurrences of Rosselot, very general terms like American, etc
  • "At the Engineering Experiment Station, Boyd helped spur the organization's mainstay, electronics research and development, generally contracted by the federal government" - phrasing
  • Is any more information available on his childhood?
  • I have been unable to find any additional information about his childhood or his life post-Georgia Tech. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to find (through much difficulty) the names of his parents and siblings. I was also able to infer where he went to high school (based on being able to find sources stating that his siblings went to school there), but there were no sources that stated explicitly that he went there, so I left it out of the article in case that inference would be considered original research. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several WP:MOS issues - problems with dashes/hyphens, footnotes should consistently appear after punctuation, etc
  • Footnote placement corrected; however, other MoS issues remain. For example, why does Heisman's record use dashes and Alexander's use hyphens?
  • On a related note, nowhere in the article does it explain what these 'records' mean. I happen to know that they refer to wins-losses-draws, but anyone who doesn't follow North American sports won't understand them, and will just see a string of meaningless numbers. There's also potential confusion because you are using 'record' to refer to the simple results obtained, rather than its more common use for the best results ever obtained (as in 'world record' etc). Modest Genius talk 18:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to lay readers to give a sentence about what exactly his thesis was about
  • Lots of very short choppy paragraphs - suggest merging or expanding where possible
  • "When forced by Georgia Tech vice president Cherry Emerson to choose between the two organizations, Boyd remained with Georgia Tech but retained his position on Scientific Atlanta's Board of Directors" - she forced him to choose between them and he chose both? This needs to be explained or clarified
  • "one such example is his placement of physicist Earl W. McDaniel despite the dislike Joseph Howey, director of the School of Physics, held for McDaniel after an undergraduate picnic prominently featured a keg of beer" - presumably McDaniel was involved in the picnic? Clarify
  • "Under his purview" - Howey, McDaniel or Boyd?
  • Needs copyediting for clarity and flow
  • "she eventually earned two degrees in education and earned the college's highest honor" - repetitive; look for similar phrasing problems.
  • That particular instance is fixed, but others remain - for example, "were developed at the station, as the station did not".
Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm working on some of these issues now. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked a good bit on the specific issues you've raised, although I think it could still use a good copyedit. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disavian, a quick point about the review process - per the instructions at the top of the FAC page, "nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors" and "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." Nikkimaria (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. It's been a while since I've been through FAC. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean by "[inconsistent] referencing format" in this instance? I'm not sure what's wrong with it as it stands. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm seeing several small errors/inconsistencies in the way references are formatted. For example, ref 29 uses month day, year date formatting, while most of the others use ISO formatting. Ref 12 uses "pp." despite having only one page number listed. Ref 7 has no publisher listed. Ref 14 lacks closing punctuation, and uses the {{citation}} template, where most of the other refs use templates from the cite family. These are just some examples - in general, reference formatting needs careful editing for accuracy and consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I looked into these. Ref 29 uses the {{Inflation-fn}} template, which presumably goes to the most recent source for inflation data, and isn't something that is easily reconfigured from month, day, year to ISO. I'm up for suggestions on that one, as it doesn't make sense to change all of the other refs to match the template. I fixed the two or so refs that used pp when it should have used p. Ref 14 now uses {{cite report}} and as such has closing punctuation. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for now, as I'm not convinced this article is sufficiently well-written.

  • There are several one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which should either be merged, expanded, or deleted. The Retirement section is particularly concerning.
  • The language is not neutral. Numerous instances of wording that suggests that Boyd is awesome and everyone else sucks:
    • "As president, Boyd was faced with two great issues, which he resolved instead of waiting for a replacement:"
      done (rephrased) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boyd's selection as interim president by Georgia's chancellor was strongly influenced by his ability as both a capable academic administrator"
      done (rephrased) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boyd also championed the establishment of research facilities."
      done (removed) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boyd was also known for his recruitment of faculty capable of both teaching and performing notable research; one such example is his placement of physicist Earl W. McDaniel despite the dislike Joseph Howey, director of the School of Physics, held for McDaniel after an undergraduate picnic prominently featured a keg of beer." Also, how exactly do these sentences have anything to do with each other? Deciding to ignore obvious illegal activity and the preference of a relevant director is not a great example of Boyd's recruiting capabilities.
    • "William H. Row (who had held the position a mere nine months)" How exactly is this relevant?
      done (removed) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boyd increased both undergraduate and graduate enrollment, faculty, degrees and programs on the campus, sometimes by an order of magnitude." Really awkward phrasing. Orders of magnitude should be discussed only in the context of hard sciences, not undergraduate enrollment.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article, and I like all of your suggestions. I have yet to fix the the McDaniel bit to my satisfaction, but have attempted to remove peacock terms wherever you have highlighted them. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like all of the fixes you've made, good work! I've made an attempt to tweak the McDaniel bit. What do you think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound better, I like it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. Please read the WP:FAC instructions, do not use done templates, do not amend other editor's posts (add your posts to your own line) and sign your entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs; 1 dead external link (britannica.com). 1 external redirects which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 01:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a more recent link for that ESPN ref, let's see if it fixes the redirect. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've replaced the dead britannica link with a more detailed journal ref. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - a few brief comments.
    • The death category is wrong (1988 instead of 1998).
      Fixed, good catch. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is ancestry.com a reliable source?
      That particular page looks like it's managed by "Cobb and Cobbs" which seems like a fairly active genealogy project. I suppose I could always email and ask how they got that particular information (wedding date)? Given the nature of the fact being cited and the fact that I haven't found that information anywhere else, I'm satisfied with that particular source. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      How can you assess the reliability of that site. It looks like a freely hosted site. Can you explain who 'Cobb and Cobbs' are? They say "Welcome to the "Cobb and Cobbs" surname research website, a central meeting place for anyone researching a Cobb genealogical connection." That doesn't inspire me with confidence. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The obituary of Boyd's mother-in-law (Betty Reynolds Cobb) gives the name of his father-in-law: H. F. Cobb. You could add this to the article (the name is given in full as Hiram Felix Cobb in her article), though I see that he died shortly after his daughter (Boyd's future wife) Elizabeth was born, so maybe not.
    • I've just come to this article after reading and reviewing J. Robert Oppenheimer. The contrast in the type and number of sources is not unexpected, but still very noticeable. Clearly there will never be as much written about Boyd as there will be about more famous people, but I'm actually very impressed with what you have managed to do here. I do have concerns though that you may be relying too much on just a few sources. Could you say a bit here about which are the main sources you have used here, and which ones are just used in passing for a sentence or two? A rough idea can be gained from the number of superscripts on each reference, but I'd like to hear direct from you which are the main sources used here.
      • So when I approach a subject related to Georgia Tech, my first instinct is to reach for my copy of Engineering the New South, a work written for Georgia Tech's bicentennial by six historians: ISBN 978-0820307848. It is written (somewhat surprisingly, given its focus on a particular subject) in a very neutral tone and gives footnotes where appropriate. It also gives a larger historical perspective when appropriate; for example they go particularly in depth when discussing (for example) the rise of federally funded research and how it related to the growth of graduate programs nationwide (and obviously, how it impacted Georgia Tech). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (para break) The other major source for this article is this pdf from the Georgia Tech Library's archives department. It is apparently written by Dr. James R Stevenson. A few other sources that I used a few times included some coverage of his time as president of University of West Georgia (by Doug Vinson, instructor of journalism at UWG); and a couple GTRI-published websites (one, two) that summarize his tenure as GTRI director. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the detailed explanation. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've not seen the "further information" template used before - is placing it at the end of a section correct?
      A quick perusal of some articles using it show that many use it as a "related to this" link at the top of the section, and a couple use it at the bottom as a "you may also be interested in" link after a block of text. I don't think there are any guidelines, but if a reviewer insists on one perspective or another I'll follow it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I've asked in another FAC as well, so we will see, I suppose. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead picture is really poor (a low-quality scan from a book or magazine) - is there no chance at all of getting a better one? I also see it has OTRS permission - I'm not sure whether that has to be double-checked here at FAC (by someone with OTRS permission, which I don't have), or if we take that on 'assume good faith'.
      As far as I can tell, that particular image is from the April 1954 edition of The Research Engineer, a Georgia Tech Research Institute publication. Here's a link, go to the last page on the bottom-right: April 1954 Research Engineer. The OTRS permission is from Kirk Englehardt, GTRI's current Director of Communications. I haven't come across any other images of Boyd. There has to be one somewhere, but I haven't found it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I won't oppose on that basis, but will leave it unresolved and wish you luck in looking. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't be sure (because of the templates at the bottom), but I think this article is only currently linked from about 10 other articles. Which might be enough, but is still rather low. Would you consider finding out how many articles this one is genuinely linked from (i.e. not including links generated by footer templates)? If the number is low, that is again no unexpected, but when the number of incoming links is low, it is important, IMO, to make sure they are maximised and done correctly.
      He's seriously discussed in Georgia Tech Research Institute, University of West Georgia, History of Georgia Tech, and Glen P. Robinson. There are a couple passing references in Neely Nuclear Research Center and Tignall, Georgia. I've just added links to Scientific Atlanta, Bud Carson and Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football. The only big change I'd make at this point would be to include his time as president of Georgia Tech in History of Georgia Tech, as I apparently have not done so. I'm not opposed to linking to him from additional articles, but these are the only ones I've thought of so far. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks fine. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were you unable to find any longer obituaries for him at all? Those would normally say whether his wife survived him or predeceased him, and would name other surviving relatives (including the children). I would also add to the final sentence that he was 91 when he died.
      I have looked high and low and have not found any sort of obituary for him. Not to say that there isn't one, but I don't have LexisNexis access or anything like that. Finding one would probably shed some additional light on his childhood and post-retirement, both of which I'd like to elaborate on. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I've re-read the article again, and I'm still impressed by it. I am close to supporting, but would really like to see the retirement section expanded if at all possible. Is there really nothing about what he did in retirement? Could you ask someone who has access to something like LexisNexis? Apart from that, the only quibble I have is that you bring in Rosselot to the main body of the article (in the 'Researcher and entrepreneur' section, without explaining who he is. For me, finding an obituary and a better picture would clinch things. If others think those are not actionable enough, I will probably support, but will hold off until others have given their opinions. Also, you really need to get the ancestry.com source issue sorted. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      How do you like the image now? I found the same picture in another document from the same source, and ran it through photoshop to drop a lot of the noise. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_E._Boyd_(scientist)/archive1&oldid=1078801713"