Talk:James Gayley/GA1

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

Reviewer: ImmortalWizard (talk · contribs) 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll officially take the role of reviewing. Depending on my workload, I will take a few days for completion. I hope the nominator is in a rush, the article has been backlogged in GAN for a long time, latter is better than never. I am a participant of the 2019 WikiCup and I vow to critically observe and comment on this article.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to denounce that I no expert in the fields of science. It's safe to assume that most of the sources will be offline, which is not an issue, rather better sometimes. I trust the nominator to verify such sources and if possible, send them to me for proof. Outside help might require regarding this.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 21:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments at first glance
This are the comments that I will be giving by fast reading. Keep in mind these will be mostly about the writing style and structure and citations will not be taken into consideration.


 * - this does not seem right according to . Replace with something like . Also replace the third comma with and add
 * Hey! Thanks for taking this on. You're right, it's been nearly a year since I nominated it! Just a bit confused on this comment though - doesn't seem right according to.... what? And there is no third comma so I'm not entirely sure where those things should be added. Just let me know :) S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 22:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * according to MOS:DECADE, I got lost, my brain is getting old. I am sorry to say but the article seems a quick fail right now and I barely started reviewing. I apologize for being so rude and skeptical but it needs some serious copyediting. Many of its parts are unclear or just bad writing such as: "graduate with a degree in mining engineering in 1876", needs mining engineering to be wikilinked, "Most important of Gayley's inventions was his device which prevented water vapor in the air from entering the furnace.", clearly needs rewording and a bunch a wikilinks. "but soon thereafter was moved with his parents to West Nottingham, Maryland", moved by whom? Depending on your level of involvement, I would have to give this a quick fail or keep on hold. Nonetheless, I will be happily adding improvement comments in the upcoming days. I usually give a lot of comments and take it seriously, let's see how this goes. Thanks!  Immortal  Wizard  (chat)  23:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies in advance, but I have to disagree with most of what you have a problem with. I don't think you are entirely reading the article at all based on what you're finding issues with. Let me explain:
 * What exactly fails MOS:DECADE? I can't see how it applies. I have read it over and over and it doesn't apply at all.
 * "There he attended West Nottingham Academy before attending Lafayette College to graduate with a degree in mining engineering in 1876." This is a grammatically correct sentence which you took out of context above. Perhaps I should change one of the words "attending" to something else, but the sentence as a whole is grammatically correct.
 * Sure, we can wikilink mining engineering.
 * ""Most important of Gayley's inventions was his device which prevented water vapor in the air from entering the furnace.", clearly needs rewording and a bunch a wikilinks." Why does it need re-wording? That sentence is also grammatically and logically correct. The device prevented water vapor in the air from entering the furnace. This is almost verbatim from source documents (which you have access to, they are in the citations!). And what are you expecting me to wikilink? I do not think anything in that sentence warrants a wikilink, especially if you follow MOS:OL.
 * Yes, the move to Nottingham needs only a single word to be removed, I'll do that now.
 * I'm fully involved and will fix issues as they come up, but they have to be real issues. I'm concerned that out of 5 problems you've presented me with, one you didn't explain, one was a truncated sentence which left fully transcribed makes perfect sense, one was were an artibrary addition of a wikilink that defeats wikipedia's own MOS, and only two were actually warranted (which is the reason we do these reviews in the first place). I'll give it a copyedit right now since it's been a few months since I've looked at the page and there are additions that other editors have added since I nominated it for Good Article Review. Hopefully I can clear them up and allow you to move on with the review process. If you are no longer interested in finishing this review that's ok. I would prefer someone with a background in science to move forward with it as I'm concerned you are not understanding sentences which are fairly basic to the subject at hand. S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 23:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Replenished comments
My first comments were unfortunate or not explained enough. I take the full blame. Regardless, I would continue.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 08:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Known for Director of the Carnegie Steel Company, first vice-president of U.S. Steel? I though he is notable for his scientific works.
 * You're right, he's known for both. Made this more apparent.

Lead
The following suggestions for alters in the lead are the most insubstantial and might change overtime depending on consensus between reviewer and nominator.
 * The opening seems too specific, it should only state his occupation and his titles and roles (managing director and vice president) should be written separately. See MOS:LEADBIO, especially the section of Positions and roles. It's just my suggestion, can be kept like the way it is. Please have a look at MOS:BIO.
 * I've re-worded it which hopefully gives this a better feel.


 * His inventions/discoveries should be mentioned a bit very shortly, since I'm assuming that's why he is most notably known.
 * Agreed!


 * It would be better to put his inventions and/or his influence in shaping modern metallurgy before his roles (which in tern might potentially have its own paragraph, depending on the length). it is ok the way it is. I have to look through the notabilities.
 * The two quotations regarding "greatest achievement" and "father of modern.." is better to be moved in the body with more explanation. It is generally not recommended according to MOS:INTRO. Maybe the second one can be kept, depending on the other variable.
 * Ok, moved the first.


 * "He was awarded the Perkin Medal in 1913 for his dry-blast process" - it should be rephrased to something like "For his dry-blast process, he was awarded the Perkin Medal" or a better way which I can't come up with. Basically, the point is his dry-blast process should weigh more than the award. I found other biographies (especially science once) where awards are almost considered a secondary thing, even if it's as notable as the Nobel Prize. ok the way it is.
 * Edited it slightly anyway, let me know what you think.


 * Also, what was his "dry-blast process". It should at beat it wikilinked, otherwise, needs an explanation.
 * Moved to the lower section where I expanded on it somewhat, let me know what you think.


 * The "father of modern..." is mentioned by Hermann Alexander Brassert (page only exist in German), I don't get why it is so notable to be in the lead. It could be somewhere in the body,
 * Sure, I was hoping to make a page for H A Brassert somewhere in the interim time to hopefully give that sentence more credibility, but never got around to it. I've found a place for it in the body.


 * Isn't he being a chemist worth mentioning? The sources mention that.
 * Sure, I used metallurgist as it's a more specific form of chemistry, but i'll include chemist in the lead since he did hold a position as a chemist in Lehigh. You could say in general he was a chemist, but more specifically we'd classify him as a metallurgist - if that makes sense!

It seems the lead suggestions are sensitive and contradictory. It's best to come to a conclusion towards the end of the review.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 09:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Early Life

 * This section looks just fine, but isn't it better to add respective commas after Pennsylvania and There? Besides, this is just my personal taste but the word "but" bothers me.
 * Fixed


 * "His parents" should be replaced with "His family". In the source, it is only stated "his family" which means it could a single parent or only siblings.
 * Good call


 * I think it would be beneficial to add the volume number of the books, especially in ref 3 as readers need to get the right one.
 * Ok!


 * [Ref 4] is formatted differently than the other two I came across so far. All the citations should have a consistent format. Also, this is optional but I would like the places of publications.
 * The other two are books, this is a newspaper - if that explains it.


 * This is just my preference and optional if you want to change the whole section to this:
 * Made sort of a hybrid between the two versions, let me know what you think.
 * Made sort of a hybrid between the two versions, let me know what you think.


 * From ref 2, page 639, I think it's worth mentioning his father came from Ireland in the mid 19th century.
 * I like to add this sort of information to my bios when I know the names of both parents, but I'm not sure I know either of their names. I will look through my references to try and find their names because that makes it easier to introduce information like this.
 * That was easy, didn't realize I already have a good resource for that

Career

 * "Gayley incorporated many changes that made a large impact on the future of steel making. Part of his changes to the steel making process were to incorporate fuel saving strategies and introduce new appliances to the mills" The first sentence sounds biased and unnecessary. Could begin the second sentence by "Gayley incorporated fuel saving strategies and introduced new appliances to the mills, which significantly altered the steel making process."
 * I like it


 * "In 1885 Gayley again changed positions when he went to work for Andrew Carnegie at the Edgar Thomson Steel Works in Braddock, Pennsylvania" changed positions to what?


 * "He was the first to install charging bins for raw materials at the blast furnaces, and was also the first to use a compound condensing engine to supply air to a blast furnace" change to "He was the first to install charging bins for raw materials use a compound condensing engine to supply air at blast furnaces"
 * Altered somewhat to make it fit better


 * Also, blast furnaces and compound condensing engine needs to be wikilinked. Casual readers won't understand.


 * "charging bins", rechargeable bins?
 * added (loading) right after.


 * "Additionally, he installed the first mechanical ore unloader and the vessels necessary for the utilization of these unloaders." wikilink ore unloader, change "these" to "the"
 * Applied your changes and slightly reworded in top of that


 * "These changes were described as "bringing American blast-furnace practice up to a plane never before attained."" by whom and why?
 * Through the AIME reference, which I'll add


 * "pig iron" and "water vapor" needs to be wikilinked
 * Ok


 * "Most important of Gayley's inventions" to "One of the most important"


 * "The whole second to last paragraph needs reordering. The "dry air blast" could be mentioned first and then its use and description.
 * Re-worded, let me know what you think


 * " By utilizing the dry-air blast, gains from production increased by as much as 20%" shouldn't production yield sound better?
 * Sure!


 * "Due to his inventions and techniques developed in iron and steel Gayley was regarded as one of the "most highly qualified technical experts in the steel industry,"[3] and the "pig iron king."" by whom and why? Also these kind of reception quotes should be moved to the legacy/impact section.
 * NYT quoted one, and the other was found in a reference. Neither state who made the initial comment. I've moved these to begin the impact section.


 * This whole section should be rewritten, ordered and emphasized properly so that the information seems clear to the general audience.
 * Given a large overhaul now, let me know how it looks


 * By any chance, if this section gets broader, sub-sectional divisions can be made.

Memberships

 * I think this section should be merged with his career.
 * Sure

Contributions to science

 * "Gayley made many contributions to the technical literature of metallurgy and other sciences, which were published three times per year in "transactions" by the American Institute of Mining Engineers." unsourced.
 * Every item on that list below this statement has a reference to back that sentence up, should I duplicate the references to make it look good?
 * no need, it's fine


 * The dates of the publications are vital and should be provided.
 * They are! (In parenthesis)


 * Ref 11 and 12 are the same but different versions and probably different page numbers. Merge.
 * Sounds good.

Impact

 * A comma should be place after each "In YYYY".
 * OK


 * This section suffers from WP:PROSELINE and requires copyediting.
 * How's this look?


 * I would change the title from "Impact" to "Legacy" since it's more about awards, honor and late work instead of what his work did for the community.
 * Ok

Personal life
Seems fine.

Result
I'll keep this on hold for 7 days. The article has mainly issues with it's prose and some of the citations. I admit that I didn't go through all the sources but the once I did are reliable. I trust the nominator and other editors' regarding the others. A lot of the text should be written more concisely in order to pass as GA. I might have to re-review if it undergoes significant changes. I myself might require to expand the review and if the nominator demands an extra few days, I am more than willing to give. Thanks!  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 15:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work and diligent review, ! I will start making the appropriate changes later on today and should finish within only a couple days. I'll ping you back once all corrections are worked through - you made a lot of good points above which I hope to remedy quickly. Thank you again! S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 16:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've went through your list above and made the appropriate changes. Parts where I have added small comments or didn't change as you asked I put an exclamation point next to. The rest of your changes I marked with check marks (sorry, I know the page looks messy). Let me know how the article looks now - I'll likely give this another copyedit early tomorrow to re-read it with fresh eyes. S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 13:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks for your contributions. The lead looks much better. I am proofreading again now and will give some comments below. I am made some minor edits, but the controversial ones should be discussed here.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 14:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I never heard of "superintendent". I think it's better to be wikilinked to whichever appropriate in Superintendent (disambiguation).
 * I had the same thought that it should be wikilinked, but unfortunately Superintendent (business) is not currently an article. I could wikilink to the disambig, but that didn't seem to be a good choice. What do you think? <b style="color:#000080">S EMMENDINGER </b> (<b style="color:#F80"> talk </b>) 14:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You could make it "business superintendent", if that works and if so, then no need for linking.
 * We could do that, my only problem with that is the title "business superintendent" is not the title he held.


 * The use of "he was the first to do this and that" is something that is bothering me as a reader. Probably add more context? At least more about metallurgy?
 * Ok


 * The newspaper source mentions that thirty years before his dead, he had record. Isn't that something interesting to mention? And maybe for that also he was called the "pig iron king"
 * Added a little more on this, with ref to the NYT a little more obvious - what do you think?
 * I think it's fine


 * About the "first" thing again, instead of my suggestions, you could change it to "install the first.." rather than "he was the first to install...". It's written this way in the source and sounds better as well.
 * Sure, nice idea.


 * Instead of "Gayley was regarded as one of the "most highly qualified technical experts in the steel industry,"", couldn't it be written something like "The Engineering and mining and journal stated that (direct quote)", or maybe simply add "recognized his peers as...". Just trying to make it neutral. What do you think?
 * I like it!


 * "In 1906, the University of Pennsylvania awarded Gayley with an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Science.[1][15] Lehigh University also presented Gayley with an honorary doctorate in science in 1912." could be merged fairly easily, and it should be!
 * Will do


 * I couldn't follow the "Contributions to science" section. Firstly, his whole career contributed to science, so couldn't it be renamed to "Further reading", "Bibliography" or "Written work". Also Don't you thunk it be merged in his career section? I still think the date of publications are important, even if it's in the ref. And the opening sentence very vaguely introduces. Why not add in each bullet points - name of the journal, date, page number?
 * I like changing it to bibliography. In most other pages, this is also its own section, so I'd prefer to leave it as it is now. I re-added the one ref I merged earlier and they were not covering the same topic after all. Added dates as well.


 * I think that the "Membership" sub-heading is useless and not required. Can simply remove that. Also, "Gayley was a member of the American Iron and Steel Institute and the British Iron and Steel Institute.[4]" and "He was also a member of the Lafayette College Board of Trustees from 1892 until his death in 1920.[11]" could be merged and is better.
 * Merged those two sentences. I would like to leave the memberships sub-header though, as otherwise those paragraphs seem out of place, and they fit better on their own than in the career part of the piece in my opinion.


 * " "greatest achievements in modern metallurgical chemistry." " yes this requires explanation why or by whom.
 * Added


 * This is MY PERSONAL TASTE but I think it's better to merge "Early and personal life" into one. What do you think?
 * I much prefer them separate if that's alright, just a personal preference to have it the way it is currently.

For now, these are the comments I leave. Call me if you are done.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 16:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tell me what you think! <b style="color:#000080">S EMMENDINGER </b> (<b style="color:#F80"> talk </b>) 16:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Amazing work! You almost carried this article single-handed. Huge props and keep up the good work in the community. I am going to give it a pass for GA, since it has significant positive positive changes. I think I kind of overdid my review and was quite rough compared to my early reviews. Thanks for your patience. Pretty much everything is fixed, I will have another reading for nitpicking. If you want to go for FA, considering sending it to peer review. Thanks and have a great year.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 16:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton for your hard work as well,, you found a lot of places I had consistently overlooked, and without your help this article wouldn't be nearly as polished as it is right now. Hope to run into you in the future! Best wishes. <b style="color:#000080">S EMMENDINGER </b> (<b style="color:#F80"> talk </b>) 16:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)