Talk:Christiaan Huygens/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 18:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  18:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

All looks fairly good.


 * Lead


 * Makes claims that are not in the body:


 * "who is widely regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time and a major figure in the scientific revolution." This claim is in the lead, but not the body, and therefore is unsourced. You need to add appropriate evidence to the body.


 * Similarly, "His mathematical theory of light was initially rejected in favor of Newton's corpuscular theory of light, until Augustin-Jean Fresnel adopted

Huygens's principle in 1818." is not in the body
 * "Huygens was the first to idealize a physical problem by a set of parameters then analyze it mathematically"


 * "first to fully mathematize a mechanistic explanation of an unobservable physical phenomenon"
 * "In 1655, Huygens began grinding lenses with his brother Constantijn"
 * "Traité de la Lumière", "Horologium Oscillatorium" (for these I suggest removing the first mentions in parentheses), "pendulum clock" and "rings of Saturn" are doubly linked in the lead.
 * In the infobox, suggest changing "Titan" to "Discovery of Titan"


 * Body


 * Typos:


 * "favor" -> "favour"


 * "analyze" -> "analyse"


 * "labeled" -> "labelled"


 * "center" -> "centre"


 * "labeled" -> "labelled"


 * "honor" -> "honour"


 * "Using his modern telescope he succeeded in subdividing the nebula into different stars" Comma after "telescope"


 * "He then calculated that the angle of this hole was 1/27,664th the diameter of the Sun" Don't see the need for the math markup here

, Louis XIV, Royal Society, analytical geometry, Hofwijck, Archimedes, center of gravity, Grégoire de Saint-Vincent, approximation of the quadrature, Frans van Schooten, Cartesian, Henry Oldenburg, Journal des Sçavans, Galileo,  Lodewijk Huygens, pendulm, cycloid, caustic, catenary, balance spring, Robert Hooke, Académie des sciences, Iceland spar, evolutes,  Huygens–Fresnel principle, physical optics, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Leibniz, Newton, analytic geometry, mathematical physics,  double refraction,
 * "home to Christiaan Huygens from 1688" -> "home of Huygens from 1688"
 * Duplicate links: Constantijn Huygens, Descartes, House of Orange, Leiden, Mersenne, catenary, The Hague, Pierre de Fermat, Frans van Schooten
 * References


 * Last sentence of "Saturn's rings and Titan" is unreferenced.


 * Named after Huygens section in unreferenced


 * Remove the inline external links
 * Suggest using the citation template for fn 1
 * The "References" are not used in the article, so move them to the "Further reading" section (Except: Move Shapiro into fn 125)


 * Not all the journals have ISSNs. I like them because although not required n the Engluish Wikipedia, theye are required on other ones. Consider adding them where they are missing. But not a requirement at GA.


 * Remove the bare URLs from fn 10


 * fn 21, 93, 112, 116: page numbers required


 * fn 22, 24: "pg" should be "p."


 * fn 26: pp. 275–6 should be "pp. 275–276". Same for fn 34, 37, 39, 45, 51, 58, 60, 52, 85, 86, 88, 99, 105, 111, 132


 * fn 30 has a tag that should be resolved


 * fn 32 is a Master's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. (Hate that one.)


 * fn 33: page range required. Same for 42, 90, 140
 * fn 40 points back to fn 27; should repeat to keep the style consistent


 * fn 46: Reformat as cite thesis and add page numbers


 * fn 72, 106, 129, 148, 150: Do we have ISBN, publication details?


 * fn 78: Fix the page numbering format


 * fn 91, 94, 95: What is Garber and Ayers?


 * fn 97: Remove the bare URL by using the template


 * fn 119: use the template to fix the format

Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * fn 137 doesn't point there anymore; consider using fn 136 instead


 * Thanks for your feedback. I will work on these issues shortly in the next few days and get back to you. Just a quick question: Is British spelling a requirement (e.g., favor = favour?) I didn't know it was, but if that's the case, I'll be happy to comply. Guillermind81 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a requirement. If you want to use US spelling instead, simply tag the article with a use American English template. I thought that British English was more appropriate given the subject. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I've worked through your feedback and addressed most of the issues you encountered, with the exception of the Notes section. Given the deadline (7 days is tomorrow) and the amount of work involved, I won't be able to complete this section on time. Do note that most of these are legacy references that preceded my editing work. If I can get an extension, I promise I will work on them and make sure they are up to par.

Here are the changes made:

Lead: Body Typos: References
 * Makes claims that are not in the body: "who is widely regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time and a major figure in the scientific revolution." This claim is in the lead, but not the body, and therefore is unsourced. You need to add appropriate evidence to the body. Now under Legacy section.
 * Similarly, "His mathematical theory of light was initially rejected in favor of Newton's corpuscular theory of light, until Augustin-Jean Fresnel adopted. Now under Optics lead section.
 * "Huygens was the first to idealize a physical problem by a set of parameters then analyze it mathematically" Now under Pendulums section.
 * Huygens's principle in 1818." is not in the body. Corrected date to 1821 to match text under Optics lead section.
 * "first to fully mathematize a mechanistic explanation of an unobservable physical phenomenon" Now under Optics lead section.
 * "In 1655, Huygens began grinding lenses with his brother Constantijn" Added new language under Lenses section.
 * "Traité de la Lumière", "Horologium Oscillatorium" (for these I suggest removing the first mentions in parentheses),"pendulum clock" and "rings of Saturn" are doubly linked in the lead. Removed first two references, removed double links for the other two.
 * In the infobox, suggest changing "Titan" to "Discovery of Titan" Changed wording in infobox.
 * "favor" -> "favour"
 * "analyze" -> "analyse"
 * "labeled" -> "labelled"
 * "center" -> "centre"
 * "labeled" -> "labelled"
 * "honor" -> "honour" Changed to British spelling.
 * "Using his modern telescope he succeeded in subdividing the nebula into different stars" Comma after "telescope" Fixed.
 * He then calculated that the angle of this hole was 1/27,664th the diameter of the Sun" Don't see the need for the math markup here. Removed math markup.
 * "home to Christiaan Huygens from 1688" -> "home of Huygens from 1688" Fixed.
 * Duplicate links: Constantijn Huygens, Descartes, House of Orange, Leiden, Mersenne, catenary, The Hague, Pierre de Fermat, Frans van Schooten, Louis XIV, Royal Society, analytical geometry, Hofwijck, Archimedes, center of gravity, Grégoire de Saint-Vincent, approximation of the quadrature, Cartesian, Henry Oldenburg, Journal des Sçavans, Galileo, Lodewijk Huygens, pendulum, cycloid, caustic, balance spring, Robert Hooke, Académie des sciences, Iceland spar, evolutes, Huygens–Fresnel principle, physical optics, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Leibniz, Newton, mathematical physics, double refraction. Fixed.
 * Last sentence of "Saturn's rings and Titan" is unreferenced. Added reference.
 * Named after Huygens section in unreferenced. Fixed.
 * Remove the inline external links. Fixed
 * Suggest using the citation template for fn 1. Not sure I understood how to do this.
 * The "References" are not used in the article, so move them to the "Further reading" section. Fixed.
 * Remove the bare URLs from fn 10. Fixed
 * fn 22, 24: "pg" should be "p." Fixed
 * fn 30 has a tag that should be resolved. Fixed

Thank you again for taking the time to review this article. Guillermind81 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries. Kudos for your work on this article. Do you intend to take it to FAC? Are you planning on working on other articles about scientists?
 * Much appreciated. I do plan to take it to FAC once I get the other references fixed and perhaps add a bit more content here and there. I've been editing other scientists' entries (mostly ancient and Early Modern) that are in need of much work, but this was the first one that I felt was up to par.

Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is up to par, and should pass FAC. Problems with the references led to me checking them more closely than I usually would at GA, but you will be grateful for it at FAC. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: