Talk:Barend Joseph Stokvis/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next day or two, I'll do a close readthrough of the prose, noting any initial issues I see, and then begin the criteria checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough
On first pass, this looks like very solid work--clear, informative, and well-sourced. I've noted down a few quibbles below, mostly clarifying pronouns, but I don't anticipate any real obstacles to this being promoted to GA status.


 * "He may also have been" -- is the he here Stovkis or Bernard? I'm guessing Stovkis, but you should probably clarify.
 * "in which was considered an expert" -- should this be "in which he was considered"?
 * " His prolific output, mainly in chemical pathology,[3] included research into the metabolism of glycogen, uric acid, urea, studies into an epidemic of cholera in Amsterdam, the toxicity of Atropa belladonna, various pigmented substances in the blood (including porphyrins), the nature of the heart sounds, and several contributions in tropical medicine,[6] in which was considered an expert." -- this list gets a little tangled, since it appears to have sublists within the list. How about using semicolons to break these up, like this:
 * research into the metabolism of glycogen, uric acid, and urea; studies into an epidemic of cholera in Amsterdam, the toxicity of Atropa belladonna, various pigmented substances in the blood (including porphyrins), and the nature of the heart sounds; and several contributions in tropical medicine,[6] in which he was considered an expert.

Does that still capture the correct meaning?
 * "several other reports followed shortly after, and other drugs were also found to be porphyrogenic" -- Do you mean Stovkis published more reports, or other researchers built on his work? Consider rewriting the passive voice into active voice.
 * "His most important work" -- Another moment where you might clarify the pronoun; the last man referred to was Hoppe-Seyler, but I assume Stovkis is meant here.
 * " judged in the day" -- just a touch awkward. What about "judged by his contemporaries"--would that carry the same meaning?
 * "In 1879 he was elected a member" -- is the he Stovkis or Virchow?


 * Thanks very much for your review. I have adopted your recommendations, particularly with regards to ambiguous use of "he". Further comments would be much appreciated. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)