Talk:Ian Donald/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 19:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy to review this interesting-looking article.
 * Hi, Howdy. I forgot it was up for GA, but ready to complete it.    scope_creep Talk  20:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead section / infobox

 * Unlink English; Scottish; World War II (here and in the main text) (MOS:OL).
 * Done.
 * Amend St Thomas' Hospital to ‘St Thomas' Hospital, London,’; Ditto Hammersmith Hospital.
 * Done
 * Replace neonate with ‘infant’?
 * A neonate is younger than an infant. Up to 28 days. Infants start at 4 months. The references make a clear medical distinction. Possibly add a note?
 * They designed and built – who were they?
 * Would you like me to list them? I could state something like "Donald and Brown with help from Kelvin Hughes"?
 * You need to check that any information in the lead section and the infobox is also included in the main body (e.g. details of Donald's birth).
 * Amend Cornwall, England to ‘Cornwall’.
 * Done.
 * Amend Royal Air Force to ‘Royal Air Force (RAF)’ as the abbreviation is used further in the text.
 * Done
 * It should be made clear that Kelvin Hughes is not the name of an individual, perhaps by introducing the place.
 * Added Kelvin Hughes company in Hillington, to show it is a company.
 * Amend the caption to ‘Ian Donald’, as it is clearly a portrait.
 * Done
 * There is no need to cite uncontentious facts in the lead section, they only need to be cited in the main body. In the case of this article, this means all the lead section's references should be moved out.
 * Link respirator (Ventilator), consider amending to medical respirator as in the main text.
 * Link respiratory problems (Respiratory disease), consider amending the text to ‘respiratory disease’.
 * I don't know if it Respiratory disease. Its been age since I wrote this. I clarify this with the biography, when I get back home.
 * Link Queen Mother's Maternity Hospital (West Glasgow Ambulatory Care Hospital).
 * Consider replacing English/England with 'British/UK' in the lead section and the infobox.
 * Paglesham, England - ‘Paglesham, Essex, UK’.
 * Done

More comments to follow. That's a lot listed here for the lead section, and if as I continue the review I find the lists for the sections to follow are similarly long, I will be forced to fail the article, as it clearly wouldn't have been prepared properly for GA nomination.

Please indicate where you think a comment is addressed, and I will then cross it out. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

1 Life

 * Link Edinburgh, philosophy, trust fund (Trust law); matriculated (Matriculation).
 * The section title is misleading, as aspects of his personal life are also to be found in the Health section. The information about his life need to be collected together in a more logical way.
 * The second paragraph needs to be copy edited to reduce the times attended and secondary education appear.
 * However, Donald never completed his education in Scotland, as as the family moved to South Africa. It needs to be made clearer to readers why his father’s poor health would cause the family to live on the other side of the world.
 * The family moved back to London – were they living there previously? Surely Donald and his siblings returned to Britain.
 * St Thomas - "St Thomas’s" is correct and should be applied throughout.
 * he moved to Paglesham - he moved to Paglesham, Essex (linked).

2 Career

 * Link obstetrics.
 * Royal Air Force - ‘ Royal Air Force (RAF)’
 * He was so successful in the role that he was mentioned in dispatches for bravery after he pulled several airmen from an bomber that had crashed and had set on fire – needs copy editing to make better sense (for instance by splitting the sentence).
 * 1945 from a Gbook reference. I have his biography but I'm on holiday at the moment. Will check the bio when I get back.
 * Is there a date available for when he was mentioned in dispatches?
 * awarded an MBE for bravery – is this award connected with the previous sentence, and if not, what was his act of bravery?
 * a variety of techniques involving radar and sonar – this needs some form of elaboration to make it sound less vague.

2.1 Negative-pressure respirator

 * An image of an old-style medical respirator would be really useful here. Is one available?

2.2 Trip spirometer

 * Link spirometer; diagnostic device (Diagnosis); pathology; neonatal pulmonary disease (Respiratory_disease).
 * at Royal Postgraduate Medical School located in Hammersmith Hospital. - consider amending to something like ‘at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith.’ to improve the prose.
 * Later is too imprecise – see MOS:RELTIME.
 * An explanation in brackets could be used to explain respiratory efficiency (see MOS:JARGON).
 * make a quantitative determination of normal respiration – ‘measure normal respiration’?

2.3 Puffer

 * Link resuscitation; atelectasis; ultrasound; maternity hospital.
 * Donald worked on a third device: a positive-pressure respirator – sounds better put as ‘he worked on a positive-pressure respirator’.
 * was not ideal, as it was – ‘was’.
 * person to operate -’operator’.
 * or incubator was needed – somethings seems to have happened here.
 * It sent a stream of oxygen mixture onto the baby's face and the device could be applied to an ailing infant in under a minute. - amend to something like 'the device, which could be fitted to a baby in less than a minute, sent a stream of oxygen-enriched air onto its face’.
 * After treating several infants, colleagues asked him - 'after having used the device, Donald’s colleagues asked him’.
 * convert – ‘adapt’?
 * , which he did with successful outcomes. The device – ‘The success of the new device’.
 * who wanted to – ‘who sought to’?
 * Introduce John J. Wild.
 * that was signed personally – ‘which was signed personally’.
 * the Queen – needs to be named and linked.

2.4 Obstetric ultrasound

 * registrar should be linked in the Trip spirometer section, not here.
 * The first sentence is far too large.
 * The patient's husband was – ‘He was’.
 * Copy edit a large ovarian cyst taken from gynaecology patients.
 * Link ultrasound and obstetrics in the caption; fibroids; transducer; John Lenihan (J. M. A. Lenihan); clinical physics (Medical physics).
 * to widen the gap with little success - ‘to widen the gap, but met with little success’.

Summary so far
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):
 * 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Failing the article
I've come to the conclusion that the article should be failed, see the summary above. My review mostly involves copy-editing/wiki-linking exercise, which should have been done before the article was nominated. The large section '2.4 Obstetric ultrasound' is far more about the history of the development of medical ultrasonic technology than about Donald himself, and much of the material—the experimental details, and equipment construction, for instance—belongs elsewhere.

Before it is re-nominated, the article needs to be copy edited for conciseness, quality of prose, and clarity for non-technical readers, and checked to ensure it remains focussed. Best, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)