Talk:B. V. Sreekantan/GA1

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

Reviewer: CooperScience (talk · contribs) 17:07, 2 April 2018 (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):
 * Very well written! Properly well-organized in written in a professional fashion.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well written and purposeful, this would be a great fit to the great articles class!
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well written and purposeful, this would be a great fit to the great articles class!
 * Well written and purposeful, this would be a great fit to the great articles class!

Other comments
1. "He is also a Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Visiting Professor at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore."
 * Wikilink "Bangalore" ✅

2. "whose Telugu speaking ancestors had migrated from Andhra Pradesh to Karnataka. B. V. Pandit, an Ayurvedic physician"
 * Wikilink "Ayurvedic" to Ayurveda ✅

3. "He was married to Ratna, a classical musician, whom he married in 1953." Checking on the first name, will add it once known --jojo@nthony (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Specify who "Ratna" is. (Include last name, if possible)

Verdict
Overall, I believe that this article is suitable to be a good article. Great work! I may recommend for another user to review this as well.

Second reviewer
Adding a follow up review, per the comment above and a request on my talk page.
 * Optional for GA, but you have some dead links; see here. dead links ether removed or updated --jojo@nthony (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You mention his association with Bhabha twice in the lead. corrected --jojo@nthony (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Government of India awarded him the third highest civilian honour of Padma Bhushan in 1988: suggest "The Government of India awarded him the Padma Bhushan, India's third highest civilian honour, in 1988. changed --jojo@nthony (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggest replacing "superannuation" with a more widely known word. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He was married to Ratna, a classical musician, whom he married in 1953. Ratna died in 2006.: suggest "He married Ratna, a classical musician, in 1953; she died in 2006." ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * equipped with and Extensive Air Shower array: presumably "and" is a typo for "an". Why is this capitalized?  And I assume this means an array for detection of air showers; I think this should be clearer to a reader who does not click through. typos removed. EAS array is a technical equipment, that was the reason why it was capitalized. A brief description of the equipment is given now.--jojo@nthony (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't capitalize, so why would we? In fact, I'm not even sure why we're mentioning it -- the source mentions it in an aside about the present state of the lab at KGF, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with Sreenkantan. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC) ''I have removed the capitals. We are talking about 1948 and scientists in India did not have too many advanced equipment available to them at that time. I thought it was worth mentioning that the opportunity Sreekantan received was a comparably advanced one. --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is dated 2015, and the comment about the array relates to 2015, as far as I can tell. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC) The reference to extensive air shower array is removed.--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * One of his early assignments at TIFR was the studies of cosmic ray produced muons at deep terrains: several issues here. "One" is singular, but "studies" is plural; they should match. It should be "cosmic-ray-produced", if this is being used as an adjectival phrase modifying muons.  And "deep terrains" is not a natural phrase.  Do you mean subterranean detection of muons, or subterranean production, or both? corrected as per suggestion --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Still a problem -- you can't use "terrain" to describe a location underground; "detected deep underground" would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC) ✅--jojo@nthony (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This research developed into the Proton Decay experiments of the 1980: this is phrased as though the reader is expected to know what this is; is this research Sreekantan did, or that others did? And again why the capitals? corrected as per suggestion --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find any mention of "proton decay" in the cited PowerPoint. Could you add page numbers (i.e. slide numbers) in the citations to that source? I see some supporting material in the "A versatile and humane scientist" source, so perhaps that's what you should be using.  That source also gives additional useful context which you've eliminated; as I said above, you're writing as if the reader knows about these experiments, but Agrawal doesn't make that assumption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC) suggested citation provided --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The new source says "This paved the way for the TIFR group undertaking the well-known experiment to search for Proton Decay in the decade 1980–90 in the KGF mines"; you have "This research paved way for the proton decay experiments of the 1980s". Agrawal gives background details so that the reader can understand the relevance -- date, who did it, where, and the fact that it was a search for proton decay, not some other kind of proton decay experiment.  You give only the date.  To be honest, I think the sentence should be cut, as it doesn't relate to Sreekantan directly, but if you're going to keep it I would at least make it clear that this happened at TIFR, and that it was a search for proton decay.  And you can't say "paved way"; it has to be "paved the way", though as that phrase is in the source you'd be better off using a different phrase to avoid close paraphrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC) The sentence omitted --jojo@nthony (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Another apparently unjustified capital: "Noted", in "A Noted Italian experimental physicist". Another: "Multiwavelength" in the next paragraph.  More: "Total Absorption Spectrometer and an Air Cherenkov Counter". ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just say "Rossi the second time you mention him, rather than giving his name in full again. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * learning advancements: rephrase; not a colloquial phrase. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I tweaked this, but now when I look at the citation I see no mention of this at all. Is the source misplaced? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC) ''Citation provided, please see section Studies of high energy cosmic rays at Ootacmund and KGF, second paragraph. --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The air shower image is a simulation; I would say so in the caption. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He set up his laboratory from the war salvages from World War II: Rephrase; "war salvages" is a clumsy way to say this. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the new version is not much better. Agrawal is pretty clear about what happened; these goods were war surplus, sold to TIFR and cannibalized.  They weren't war salvage, and weren't abandoned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC) reworded --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Optional, but I think you could drop "Muller" from "Geiger Muller counters"; it's almost never used, and that's where the link goes anyway. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * His findings were published as a scientific paper in the Indian journal, Proceedings of Indian Academy of Sciences in 1951: not wrong, but it might make more sense to cut the whole sentence and instead cite that paper along with the existing source. It's redundant to say his findings were published as a scientific paper in a journal; that's what how all modern scientific findings are reported.  The citation would actually give the reader the pointer to the paper itself.  You have a similar sentence below for the PICRC paper; I would make the same change there. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 18 events of neutrino interactions on the rock: what rock?✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The link you've added isn't what I was looking for. The citation has no page number given, which means it's impossible to verify; can you add page numbers that cover the various places you use the citation?  I see you use the citation eight times, so you may need to split it into multiple citations if each use refers to a different page.  And can you tell me what the source text is for this sentence from the book?  I think I can help come up with a more informative wording, but I'd need to see the source text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC) The source is citation no.1, page no. 1733 middle column top, wordings are "The experiment was set up at a depth of 2.3 km and became operational in April 1965. The experiment ran for several years and 18 events were recorded that could be clearly attributed to neutrino interactions in the rock. Much larger number of neutrino events (≈ 300) were later detected in the proton decay experiments conducted during 1980–90." --jojo@nthony (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * He was also a member of the team that experimented on the Grand Unification Theory: one can't do experiments on a theory; one does experiments to validate or disprove a theory, or inspired by the theory, or to test the theory, or something along those lines.✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that's fixed, but I'm leaving this unstruck as this is one of the points cited to the book without page numbers. The reference to detecting proton decay also seems to duplicate the earlier mention cited to Agrawal.  Can you give me the source text here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Citation no. 1, page 1733 middle column, the text runs as "In the seventies, some models of Grand Unification Theory (GUT) had predicted non-conservation of baryons implying decay of protons with life time in the 1031−1034 range. Menon, Miyake, Narasimham and Sreekantan thought that this should be experimentally detectable in the low background environment of deep KGF mines. Motivated by this, TIFR and the City University of Osaka planned a joint Proton Decay experiment in KGF. Narasimham, M. R. Krishnaswamy and N. K. Mondal, who joined the group in 1977, along with the Japanese scientists from Miyake’s group, played the lead role in setting up these experiments"--jojo@nthony (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources appear to be good quality, and I see no problems with close paraphrasing or copyvio. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * the decay of protons in deep environment: what does "deep environment" mean? And why do we need lists of apparently non-notable collaborators?  We can just say he was part of a team, unless there's something notable about one or more of the other memers, for partnerships.  If there's just one co-researcher it makes more sense to give the name. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Later, a larger cloud chamber, the largest one till then: largest in the world? In India?✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have italics for some scientific phrases. I know from previous reviews of your articles that you do this when the phrase is drawn directly from scientific material that is hard to paraphrase.  This isn't an appropriate way to do this; direct quotes have to be clearly indicated, which means quote marks and in text citation directly following the quote.  It would be better to paraphrase but I understand that that's hard with technical material. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is reported that he motivated Govind Swarup to prepare the proposal for the establishment of: an odd thing to include. Why "It is reported that", first of all?  If it's reliable, we can cut these four words; if not, the whole sentence needs to go.  But why mention it at all?  Is it really significant that he suggested someone else write a suggestion for something else? ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * along with R. L. Kapur, a known psychiatrist: using "known" as an adjective usually indicates that something is publicly known of a pejorative nature: "a known criminal". I'd cut it, or if you mean "notable", replace it if you can source something more specific.✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cut the number of studies listed on ResearchGate -- it's not exhaustive so this is trivia. There's no need to mention ResearchGate at all in the text; it's jsut a resource.✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For "current project" add an "as of" date.✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of his books are listed again in prose after the bullet list in the article, and then all are listed again in the Publications section at the end. corrected--jojo@nthony (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's some duplication of material in the "Positions" section. For example, his stint at MIT is covered in the "Career" section ("Sreekantan had a stint at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1954") and then again in "Positions": ("Sreekantan served as the visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for two terms, the first from 1954 to 1955 and subsequently from 1965 to 1967").  I think it might make more sense to integrate these positions into the career section, to avoid this.  The Awards section makes more sense to keep separate. Rephrased the first sentence --jojo@nthony (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we trim the "See also" list? Some of these links look only tangentially connected, and in any case this section should not contain links that are already in the body of the article. ✅--jojo@nthony (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this article, I have made corrections as per your suggestions. Please check and advise. --jojo@nthony (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but I'm afraid your English is quite odd to my ear. I know Indian English is in some ways quite different from other varieties, so perhaps that's what's going on here, but I find myself wondering if English is a second language for you.  If so, I would like to suggest that you get a copyedit from WP:GOCE where possible prior to nominating at GAN.  The infelicities are quite frequent.  GAN doesn't require top quality prose, but it does require that the language be clear and concise, and in places your prose is neither.
 * I'm going to continue with the review, and I don't expect to fail it on these grounds, but please consider getting copyedits for any other nominations you may have in the works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please check and advise. --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please check and advise. --jojo@nthony (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've decided to fail this nomination. A good deal of work has been done on fixing issues, but a thorough review to compare the article text to the sources is needed. For example, after some discussion on whether the source supported a sentence about an air shower array, it was removed, but the first half of the sentence remains, saying "the research team he established for studies in high energy cosmic rays is still active". The source, referring to some 1950s experiments, "These were the modest beginnings of the Cosmic Ray Laboratory at KGF, which today boasts of a 400-ton detector..." This does not indicate that there is any connection, organizational or lineal, with the research team (or teams) there today; and it's also not clear from the source that "he established" is an accurate statement -- Naranan simply says the two of them worked together, without giving priority. This is not an isolated issue, as can be seen by reading through the review notes above, and I do not have faith that the nominator understands how closely a source must support a statement. I would suggest checking every statement against the source to be sure it's strictly accurate before renominating -- this is not work that should be taking place at GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for your time and efforts here. Reviewing, more often than otherwise, tends to slide into a master-pupil exercise, which, at times, may prove to be irritating to the “pupil”. This is one of the reasons why I refrain from nominating any articles or attempting my hand at GA/FA reviews or participate in forum discussions. This nomination was against the normal run of my Wiki-life; it so happened that I participated in last year’s Wiki Cup and a fellow editor advised me to nominate my articles. I nominated a few and this article was the last of them to be reviewed; If my memory serves me right, you reviewed some of them. Anyway, I do not expect to nominate any more articles as I am trying to ease into semi-retirement from Wikipedia, and eventually into full retirement. After almost 13 years, over 100,000 edits and close to 1500 articles, I feel it has started getting monotonous. Before I sign off, let me say, as an aside, that comments during a review must never go personal or condescending, instead the reviewer should be able to pass on the message, be it a compliment or a criticism or a piece of advice, without adding a personal touch or a know-all shade to it. My grey hair helps me to ignore a derogatory comment that comes my way from time to time, but an enthusiastic new editor may find it too discouraging and if it prompts him to stop editing all together, which in any case is voluntary, Wikipedia will be the loser. Thanks. --jojo@nthony (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * jojo@nthony, I certainly didn't mean for my comments to be derogatory, so I'm sorry if it came off that way. I also take your point about needing to be careful with new editors; my own grey hairs should indicate enough experience to avoid that mistake, but a reminder helps.  I do recall your other articles and it's clear you're a good editor, but I do think this article was prematurely nominated.  As for retirement, it would be a loss for Wikipedia if someone with your level of productivity were to stop editing.  My own experience is that my enthusiasm for Wikipedia fluctuates over the years, and so long as I only edit when I feel like it, I don't think about retirement -- stopping for a while is always temporary.
 * I would also like to say that the GA process is by nature confrontational if the article is failed, which is a pity; this place works much better when two editors collaborate rather than take opposing sides. I'd be happy to work with you away from GA on addressing any remaining issues with the article, if you like.  Either way, best wishes to you, both on- and off-wiki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , Please do not feel that I was referring to the failure of this article to make the grade. Like I mentioned earlier, it was just a spin-off from a fun game I got into, to shake off wiki-stress. I was only referring to certain other remarks. Personally, it would not ruffle my feathers but I felt, you being an experienced editor, if the comments were toned down, they might prod the other party to be more productive and the results would be better, be it an aye or a nay. Thanks for the good wishes and I wish you the same. --jojo@nthony (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)