Talk:James E. Boyd (scientist)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Modest Genius talk 19:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Discussion

 * By "the Georgia Tech refs" I assume you are referring to the two pdfs? I actually don't know who wrote them or when they were written, but they're on the Georgia Tech Library's website and they are very thorough with their treatment of the academic careers of the individuals they describe. I can try to ask around to find out more. Also, I fixed the page number in html comment thing. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, though there are three. Presumably they're part of some collection of biographies? You can list the publisher as the Georgia Tech Library and give a link to their website (as well as the direct pdf) if that's where they come from. Modest Genius talk 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this satisfactory: ? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. The PDF itself (in the document properties) indicates that the author was one Dr Jim Stevenson, and the date was 27 Jan 2005. Modest Genius talk 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I'll fill those in now. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've considered sectioning out the part where he's in the Navy, but his life goes Tech, Navy, Tech and Navy, so I'm having trouble thinking of a satisfactory way to do that without confusing the reader. I'm open to ideas, though. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, fair point. However it seems a bit unclear at the moment as to where he was at each stage, unless the reader has been paying close attention. Perhaps one section on 'joins Georgia Tech, but WW2 intervenes and he goes to the navy', and another on 'returns to Georgia Tech whilst remaining on naval reserve'? Modest Genius talk 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the current arrangement? I've made quite a few changes overall. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 09:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just split out a Retirement section, which currently only has 3 sentences. He must have done something in 26 years, but it may well not be reported anywhere. All good now. Modest Genius talk 22:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing is I can't seem to find any information about this supposedly important paper ("Propagation Studies of Electomagnetic Waves") other than what I already have, and the library servers are down at the moment. I guess I'll look again tomorrow. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 09:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, me neither, and I tried all my usual routes. Perhaps it was a classified US Navy report? He was still working for them after all. Still probably noting what we have (Boyd & Lowndes, "Propagation Studies of Electromagnetic Waves", 1947) (note typo in their web page). Modest Genius talk 00:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a bad theory. So ? I guess I'll toss that in there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's as good an option as any exists. Modest Genius talk 22:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I've run through the criteria again and struck out those that no longer apply, sorry for my slowness. I'm going to pass this once the week is up anyway, but improving the remaining near-bare references would be great (eg current refs 16-22 could do with dates, authors etc). There's no point in worrying about anything else. Modest Genius talk 22:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, one other thought - the sporting records of the various coaches will make no sense at all to those unfamiliar with the North American notation (wins-losses-draws). However, I've been unable to find a suitable article to link to. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I touched up the refs for which I could find more information. It was nice working with you :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Promoted. My first GA review worked out pretty well ;) <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I'm going to kick it over to FAC when I get some more free time, I'll let you know when I do. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)