Talk:Mary Anning/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll go through in detail soon, but the first thing that strikes me is that the variety of English used is inappropriate. ~~A biog of a Brit should be in BE, not AE.~~

I could use some help here. I have tried to use British spelling conventions (colour instead of color etc.). However, being a Yank and working with sources some of which were written by Americans, it is hard for me to realize (er realise) sometimes when I have used an Americanism. If you could point them out or even fix some of them I would be appreciative.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done that, if you use Firefox, its British English dictionary extension will underline American forms as spelling errors - which of course they are (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Deep time" sounds anachronistic to me, I don't think it would have been used in her lifetime~~

I am not sure this is a problem. It is true the term probably wouldn't have been used in the first half of the 19th century, but it is a term used by modern historians of science (for example Martin Rudwick in his iconic Scenes from Deep Time (1992) which is one of the sources cited) to describe a concept for which there was no contemporary phrase. I don't think any of the contemporary phrased like "ages before Adam" or "antediluvian eras" would work as well. The same could be said about "geohistorical" and terms like "paleontologist" and "scientist". I think it is Ok to use the terminology used by modern historians to describe how a historical figure's work fit into the development of a scientific discipline. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some links such as Lyme Regis, are not made at the first occurrence. there is considerable overlinking, some words linked three or more times.
No dabs, second EL is dead, ~~Torrens ref should say that a subscription is required~~

Fixed. Incidentally I paid the $30 to download the full text of Torrens (1995). The price was a ripoff but it is still one of the best sources on Anning and it would have been hard to do the article without it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. ~~In Plesiosaurs section, text is sandwiched by images contra MoS, suggest removing one, or moving to another section.~~ If you want to take this to FA, you will need alt text

I shifted the images, which I hope will avoid the sandwiching problem. I will add some alt text tonight when I will have some more time. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

£400 - suggest given value in modern terms also (85x)

I am always nervous about conversions from pre 20th century currency amounts to "in today's dollars" (or pounds, euros etc.) because price ratios differ for different kinds of goods (particularly for things like land and rents vs services vs manufactured or agricultural goods) so it is kind of misleading to say that x dollars then would purchase what y dollars would today. I don't see anything about it at [MOS:CURRENCY]. Is there somekind of guideline on this? Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 12 is an online version of a real publication, and should be formatted as such ( add page number and year, remove retrieval date and reference to google books)

Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why are "the Dorset page" and "Strange Science" reliable sources?

Strange science is an educational web site that is self published, but it is supported, approved, or endorsed by a variety of organizations including the American national science foundation, encyclopedia Britanica (who gave it a Web's best sites award in 2009), School zone who gave it a 5 star rating, and KidsSites.com who lists it as one of the top science sites for kids, and it lists the sources used for each of its articles. I should think it is Ok for what this article uses it for. The Dorset Page is a trickier case. It is maintained by someone named Brian Tompkins and as far as I can tell (based on google searches) it is fairly widely considered to be a good online resource for information about the county of Dorset including geneological research and local history, but since Tompkins appears to be a self published blogger it might have problems passing as a reliable source. I will do some more research and see if I can learn more. If I can't prove it is a reliable source, I am pretty sure I can find alternate sources for everything I used it for.Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with what you've said for GA, if you take this to FAC, I think the second ref at least needs a better source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will probably rework so that Dorset Page is still in the external links section but not cited directly as a source. The only important thing it is a source for is the fact that the local townspeople mistook the symptoms of her use of laudanum for pain as signs of a drinking problem and for that I can use this [1] or Emling (2009) p. 195.

~~NH Museum ref - pointless to have quote, you only need the ref to support what is in the article, not repeat it~~

Done. I agree it is stupid (and I didn't put it in), but believe it or not there was once a guideline that encouraged that sort of thing with online sources. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~ref 50 should mention the Prehistoric Society, whose website this is~~

Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 51, needs name of the writer of the piece~~

I don't know what is to be done here. There is no byline on the review. That is not uncommon for brief pieces in magazines or newspapers. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O dear, first sentence in larger type says Ahead of the August publication of her latest novel, Tracy Chevalier takes...

Oops you are right. I was being dense. Fixed now. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references and the first "further reading" have surname, first name, whereas the rest of "further reading" have first name, surname , please chose one style, preferably the first

Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes, please check

I've had another read, and made these edits, a couple of AEs I missed, and a link for parish relief. Once the points above are addressed, I have no further issues. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Precise[edit]

Could this phrase be reworded to be more specific She was followed by a second daughter, Martha, who died almost at once. She died within a few hours, days, born dead? Thanks, OboeCrack (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]