Talk:Daisy Yen Wu/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 13:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing. Shout if you object to any of it.
 * Why would I do that? Your changes are always welcome and I appreciate the input. (I have another project I am working on that I am going to ask for your help with). Thanks for picking this one up. SusunW (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "the first Chinese woman" Just checking that you don't want the word 'ethnic' in there. It works either way.
 * I don't really know what her ethnic identity was but almost all of the sources claim she was the first Chinese woman. So, I think we stay with her nationality. SusunW (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Together they began researching vegetarianism" Her co-researcher has not yet been mentioned in this paragraph"
 * Good catch! ✅ changed it to read "Together with Hsien Wu, she" SusunW (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "and another group of mice meat" Just meat?
 * Hmmm, now I have a grammatical question, changed to "another mice group meat" but as group is a collective noun and singular should it be mouse group? SusunW (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , back to my original question. Did the second group eat just meat? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it, source says they ate a "meat diet (containing 2/3 whole wheat and 1/3 milk powder)" so perhaps "a diet of grain and meat"? If that works, then ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You do get that I read your comment to mean to strike mice entirely, i.e. just meat; instead of did they only eat meat?. Communication is so bizarre. LOL SusunW (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yep. Gave me a giggle. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "they discovered significant growth differentials and problems with rickets" In which group?
 * ✅ Added "in the vegetarian group" SusunW (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "determining daily consumption rates of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins determining" Optional: is it possible to change one of these uses of "determining"?
 * ✅ Changed to "determining daily consumption rates of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins finding that" SusunW (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "determining that the diet of people in Beijing was fairly representative of a typical diet throughout the country." How? Did they collect data other than from Beijing?
 * The source says "中国生理学会开会决定，与博医会合作，成立一个研究中国人新陈代谢的委员会，在沈阳、北京、济南、上海、香港等地分区对华人的“基础代谢诸问题”进行研究[１８] ，膳食调查便是其中一个内容. " ["The Chinese Society of Physiology decided to cooperate with the Chinese Medical Association to set up a committee to study the metabolism of Chinese people in Shenyang, Beijing, Jinan, Shanghai, Hong Kong and other regions to study the "basic metabolism problems" of Chinese people [18], diet Investigation is one of them".] I have added "from various groups throughout the country" but if you think I need to specify which places, I can. SusunW (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Their research papers were foundational to the development of later ideas on modern Chinese nutrition." ... "Their work was foundational to the study of metabolism and diet in China" Assuming that you are actually talking about two different things, would it be possible to tweak the language to differentiate them a little more?
 * Not sure I understand the question. Source says "与同时期国内其他类似工作相比，他们的工作不仅规模较大、有代表性，而且有深度，因而有关史料中凡提到中国膳食的调查，必定要提到这项工作. " [Compared with other similar work in China at the same time, their work is not only large-scale, representative, but also in-depth, so any relevant historical data which references Chinese diet, must mention this work.] But it also says, "营养工作能成为吴宪领导的协和生化系科研重点之一，而协和的营养工作又成为当时国内最有影响者之一，这当中无论从何角度看，严彩韵都功不可没. " [This nutritional work became one of the the scientific research priorities of the Xiehe Biochemical Department led by Wu Xian, and the nutrition work of Xiehe became one of the most influential at that time."] If you are asking if it should say "Their research papers were foundational to the development of later ideas on modern Chinese nutrition" then yes, I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps nutrition and diet? SusunW (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not sure that a reader will understand what the difference is between "later ideas on modern Chinese nutrition" and "the study of metabolism and diet in China". It seems that they are different things. Fine. Maybe either rephrase one or both of them, or - my preference - give a little more information on one or both of them. The sources seem to contain information which personally I find interesting and which is not currently in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm with you now. 2 separate places, two different statements. Perhaps I move them both to legacy. Let me work on that. SusunW (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the section which discusses Their research papers were foundational to the development of later ideas on modern Chinese nutrition The text says "这些论文成为中国现代营养研究的重要文献. 研究营养学史者，都将之作为一个重要内容. " ["These papers have become an important document for modern nutrition research in China. It had an important content for those who study the history of nutrition."] I moved both sentences from the body and to the legacy section. Is that better? SusunW (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "organized finding aids for the materials for the staff and students of the college." What does this mean?
 * I've linked Finding aid, does that help? SusunW (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Yen Wu's work on the 3rd edition in the 1970s strove to maintain the style of the original book, but to update it with changes which had occurred over the intervening 30 years." It was more than 30 years since "the original book" was published in 1929.
 * Yes, but it had been revised in 1938, which is what I took the source to mean. I just struck out 30, so it says in the intervening years. ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Just the minor queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me know if there are other issues. I think I have answered everything, but there may be a few tweaks still needed. I appreciate your help in improving the article. SusunW (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha! You - and your team - did it all. Great work. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was about to promote this but have a query. It is labelled as "Chemistry and materials science". You sure? It seems more "Biology and medicine" to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just pick one. I often have no clue what category to put my women in so just pick something and figure someone will change it. I don't recall what I originally picked. SusunW (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)