Talk:Andrew M. Gleason/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 01:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a couple of Featured List candidates, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 01:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - starting with first round of review feedback.

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer review tool
 * The quote on proofs from the lead is not in the article? Why not?
 * Because repeating the same exact text twice is stupid, there's nothing to elaborate, and the lead seemed like a better place than the rest of the article to include a quote such as this one on his general philosophy. Note that this quote was the one used for the DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * The quotes seem to be the main thing the tool hits on, I checked through it and I don't think anything else is directly lifted from anywhere ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues ✅


 * External links
 * The reference titled "Andrew Gleason, 4 November 1921 - 17 October, 2008" is dead and has been since November 30, 2015
 * Fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Well Written

 * One of the notes refers to the subject as "Andy" outside of a quote, that is too informal a phrase for Wikipedia
 * Are you sure? There's a note with "Andy" inside a quote, but I didn't see one outside a quote. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, I did not pick up on the fact that it was a quote in the note. MPJ  -US 18:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Biography
 * "mechanics normally for juniors." should be "mechanics normally intended for juniors."
 * ✅  E Eng 


 * ", including graduate real analysis in his sophomore year." it seems like this is not really a logical follow up on the quote?
 * ✅ It was okay as it was, but reworded.  E Eng 


 * "and on graduation should be "and upon graduation"?
 * ❌ Upon is fussy, on is better.  E Eng 


 * The sentence that starts with "(Others on" does not really need the parenthesis
 * ❌ An aside like this should be set off.  E Eng 


 * "published the most important in his series" - is that missing a word after "important"?
 * ✅ Reworded.  E Eng 


 * Staring a new paragraph with "But" seems wrong.
 * ❌ That's something rulebound 7th-grade English teachers say. Perfectly appropriate here.  E Eng 
 * That's just hurtful man, not cool. Pistols at dawn!!  MPJ  -US 20:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You say when and where! That old Miss Snodgrass couldn't hit the broad side of a barn!  E Eng  23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "(This work also involved deeper math­e­mat­ics related to permutation groups and the graph isomorphism problem.)" does not need the parenthesis IMO.
 * ❌ As before, it's an aside which should be set off to avoid disrupting the main flow.  E Eng 


 * "a Lieutenant Commander in its Nebraska Avenue Complex" should that be "the Nebraska Avenue Complex?"
 * ✅  E Eng 


 * "this period remains secret" I think the word "classified" is probably more appropriate here, other people know about it, it's probably documented but not made public.
 * ❌ Classified is just a fancy way of saying secret. Of course other people know about it (he didn't work in an isolation booth) but those who know are forbidden to tell, and that's what secret means.  E Eng  A little story... Once in a while he'd say, "My boy, I'll be gone next week -- down to Washington for some NAS meetings." NAS = National Academy of Sciences. Years later I realized -- ha, ha! his little joke. Not NAS, but NSA.
 * Secret means "he did not tell anyone about it", classified means "he was not allowed to tell anyone about it", there is the intend behind it. MPJ  -US 20:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Secret means secret. Classified means officially designated secret or confidential or something else, the actual meaning of which is defined in some complicated way. One is a plain word and the other is a popularized technicality. Not to get all OR or anything but the man himself used the word secret in our (very short) conversations about it. And the section of the source on this point is entitled, "The secret life of Andy Gleason".  E  Eng  23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, well, that source does say, "Most of Gleason’s applied work during this period remains classified", so having displayed my inside knowledge and erudition, I guess I'll capitulate. But only on this one point! And I'll be back! You'll pay for this!  E Eng  23:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * First time NSA is used it should be spelled out.
 * ✅  E Eng  16:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources/verifiable

 * Most of the sourcs with links are missing the "accessdate" parameter
 * Most of the sources are print documents with courtesy links, for which the use of accessdate is discouraged; see Help:Citation Style 1: "It is not required for linked documents that do not change." Citation (the style used here) also provides similar advice. However, I agree that it should be supplied for web-only documents such as references 40 and 42, and will check those. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On further checking the only other one that this applies to is the Gallian reference, to which I added the accessdate. The MacTutor and MathGenealogy references are also online without accessdates, but those are generated by specialized citation templates that don't include that parameter. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources look reliable from what I am seeing, I will spot check to see if they cover what's referenced as I review the actual content of the article later.
 * Reference 40 is just a name and a link, please provide the appropriate additional information.
 * Same with reference 42.
 * Both done. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Broad in coverage

 * It has enough to cover the GA criteria of "broad" ✅

Neutral

 * Factual and sourced ✅

Stable

 * Not seeing much of recent issues on the talk page, a few years back there were questions but nothing recent. History does not reveal any recent issues either. ✅

Illustrated / Images

 * No issues ✅

Thanks! I'm traveling this week and may not have much time to get to this, but if I don't I'll take a look when I get back. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - I have completed my review, I must admit I don't actually understand all the content but I did cross check with references here and there and it appears to match what is stated from what I can see. I will put the article on hold to give you time to address the issues.


 * - looking at the work done by the two of you (yay teamwork) I believe you have addressed all my concerns... or called me Fussy ;-)... so I believe this deserves the Good Article Stamp.  MPJ  -US 07:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)