Talk:Pamela C. Rasmussen/GA1

GA review: on hold

Generally very good, and worthy of GA. However, there are some things which need to be done before I'm happy to list it, and other areas could be improved or worked on. GA is not dependent on all these things being met, but they will need working on if you wish to take this up the quality scale.

General GA Criteria:

• It is well written

Readable prose, no major spelling and grammar concerns, generally complies with WP:MOS, but a few minor concerns:

• Throughout: Watch style: lots of "She did..she was", which gets tedious.
• Lead: wouldn't hurt if it were a little longer. Why was the book landmark? Is this a bit peacocky?
• Career: (also see coverage notes below). When was she a research associate for Ripley? Lots of listing of titles; can we hear a bit more about what each of these things entail, or perhaps why the institutions are important?
• Research highlights: when did she discover and describe (etc). And how? In the field with binoculars? By studying specimens? Taking pictures? Did these entail trips? Just a little information for ignoramuses like me. In other words, briefly outline what it means to "discover" a bird species.
• "A 2005 collaboration": presumably hers. This paragraph could have been taken from anywhere. How do I know it's relevant to Rasmussen? "It demonstrates" what does? Their report demonstrates? And are these facts about hotspots or a conclusion reached by Rasmussen? "More recent work": generally? Rasmussen's? Why is this significant? (The last time I will mention this tendency to generality; I'll leave you go through the article and make it more specific to Rasmussen: keep reminding yourself that this is about Rasmussen, not bird discoveries or a summary of reports).
• What "expected decrease in range size"? Who expected it? Is this weaselly? If Rasmussen's findings contradicted accepted theories, then show us. Or did it show something she wasn't expecting?
• Fraud: opening sentence could provide better context (date, or, "during her period with"). Another weasel: "considered to be". Who considered?
• Who's Alan Knox? And if he uncovered it, why does the lead sentence claim Rasmussen did?
• "Rasmussen took the position of assistant to S. Dillon Ripley, the former secretary of the Smithsonian, and undertook to produce a definitive guide to the birds of South Asia when he became ill shortly after beginning the project." Clumsy: reword for clarity.
• "The false documentation delayed the rediscovery of the Forest Owlet, as described above" Hmm, not really, it was a parenthetical aside and easy to miss. I reading closely, yet still had to go back.
• This whole section about the fraud is confusing. Perhaps arrange chronologically, starting with Meinertzhargen, then the partial discovery, then Rasmussen's part. Isn't helped by the fact you've referred to the Ripley research, which I presume is for the book discussed in the following section. Perhaps switch sections around: we read about her work in the book, then what she discovered in the process??
• Book: It would be good to have a little expansion of a few things. Who are Collar and Pilgrim? And when did they do this? And how is this relevant? How was the map database lost? When did Rasmussen consider (etc)? (That last sentence could be clarified; I don't know what it means).

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

Inline citations present, good range of reliable sources used; however, a minor quibble:

• Why the stack of citations for "Peter Kennerley, author and Asian bird expert". Are these all attesting that he's an Asian bird expert? (if so, one will suffice) Or are they citing something else (in which case, move to those statements).  Done - that was the reason

• It is broad in its coverage.

Fairly comprehensive, covering major points of interest regarding Rasmussen's career and ornithological signifance, but:

• Could really do with more biographical information; we launch straight into her career, for example. Did she not exist before this? What was her childhood like? Is she married? Related to anyone interesting? What first sparked her interest in birds? Are her family birdwatchers? That kind of thing...

The only biographical information I can find is in the first external link. Although I have no reason to doubt it, can a newspaper article be a reliable source? Y resolved.

• It is neutral;

Y Neutral tone maintained throughout

• It is stable

Y No edit warring, or content dispute; no major rewriting of content

• It is illustrated, where possible, by images

Tags have been checked. Fair use tagged appropriately for book cover; other images in cc. But:

• Forest Owlet should be replaced with identical version in Commons (see tagging); also indicate in caption that it was rediscovered by Rasmusse
• Indian vulture photo caption should indicate significance to Rasmusse
• Why the video clip? Seems a bit decorative, rather than encyclopediac.
• You've claimed Fair Use for the book covers, but the illustration sits there with no explanation, which suggests it's not needed (and therefore not fair use). Use your caption field to indicate the significance of this cover illustration.

 Done I wanted to illustrate one of the "fake" records, the flycatcher videoclip was the only one available, no still image.

• other issues:
• Needs an infobox. Check out Category:People infobox templates

 Done

You asked me to go easy on you: hope you don't think I've been too harsh! This is a strong article, and if you can tighten up some of those things above it will easily be GA. Feel free to discuss any of these points with me. I've enjoyed reviewing this article; well done. Gwinva (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

I've seen the changes you've made: it all looks good. I am pleased to list this as GA. Well done! Gwinva (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)