Talk:Jane Ingham/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 09:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Starting review
I'm picking this up for review and reading through it first, making minor (uncontroversial) punctuation corrections to avoid just listing them, and jotting down other notes. You don't need to  me here because I am watching this page. Please use bullet points when adding replies (easier for me to find), and please don't strike out text to signify you have finished. I prefer the  and related templates. Will get back with you soon! —Eewilson (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Life

 * Wikilink the following on first use: Wiltshire, Second class honours, Theology, curate, Poplar, rector, vicar, canon residentiary, gas lamp, Admiralty, punt
 * Done - very good recommendations Gricharduk (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * When describing her father, you say Reverend Tupper Carey. I assume that means that Tupper was his given name and Carey his surname?
 * Correct. Tupper was his given name and Carey was his surname. It probably explains why Ingham's father changed his name by deed poll (see the "Names" section). In this case, the Reverend Tupper Carey is Ingham's grandfather. Gricharduk (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Is Second Class Honours a proper noun? If not, don't capitalize it. Same with Second Class in Theology, or Theology if Second Class is a proper noun?
 * Done. I have lowered the case of second class honours and theology. Gricharduk (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Bolded text is ambiguous because of the addition of text about Tupper-Carey's sister and Annie Redman King. Whose friend was Annie Redman King? It seems like this text is important only in the context of the end note about Annie Redman King, which could be used later instead, and I question the relevance of both it and the endnote at this location, so it's possible all of the following text could be removed, or edited and moved to where it is more relevant: In the paragraph which references Redman King, you could simply say, "where friend Annie Redman King was warden" or "where family friend Annie Redman King was warden" or something similar. Think on it.
 * Done. Compeletely agree - I have attempted to follow your advice and re-organised/moved the sentences into the relevant sections. Gricharduk (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll read it over, but at first glance, it looks good. —Eewilson (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Other than in the lead and the infobox, there is no mention of Albert Ingham, her future husband, until he "followed her to Cambridge." There is no discussion of why this random man would follow her to Cambridge, no mention of a courtship, working relationship, or romantic relationsihp prior to this sentence. Afterward is written That could perhaps come first, then the sentence about him following her to Cambridge, etc. Also, does the sudden death of Frank Ramsey matter in this context? Your call on that.
 * Thinking about this now - it is very good advice and I will respond here. Gricharduk (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I re-organised that section on her engagement and marriage. I have removed the sudden death of Frank Ramsay - you are right, it is not relevant. Gricharduk (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SUPERB! Reads and flows so much easier, and the reader will not be shocked into thinking she was being stalked. —Eewilson (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hah hah! Gricharduk (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

—Eewilson (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How did she die? Of what? Are there additional details that could be used?
 * I could not find a funeral report in The Times but I am going to search for more details (perhaps in the British Newspaper Archive). I will get back to you here on this one. Gricharduk (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

—Eewilson (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick responses and responsiveness! My first read is generally punctuation, grammar, and understandibility, plus images. Second read will be sources. Currently in the Career section.
 * No problem at all - thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. Gricharduk (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

More

 * More suggestions for the Life section:
 * What type of household and neighborhood did she grow up in? Middle-class? Religious? Strict? Supportive? Do you know?
 * Cosmo Lang's biography of Tupper-Carey's father has some early chapters on life at Huddersfield and Leeds. I will need to retrieve this tomorrow but it is a great suggestion. Definitely middle-class and religious - but not strict from what I know of Albert Darrell (apparently he was a joy to be around). Gricharduk (talk)
 * Should the names (in order of birth) of her siblings be in this section? Not with detail, just an intro. This could introduce Edith "Betty" by name before you get to her later. You say Tupper-Carey is the third daughter, but perhaps a bit more on that would be nice. Third of six? Third of four? Were there sons? Did they all live to adulthood? Not a genealogy, but a bit more to give us an idea of her childhood.
 * Done and an excellent suggestion. Let me know if you think there should be more detail. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous pronoun: Who married? This sentence directly follows one about her maternal grandparents, but I think it is about her parents.
 * Done and re-worded. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have more, but the internet is being weird so going to save before I lose this. —Eewilson (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * More questions of interest:
 * Did she have anything holding her back because she was a woman? Was her career limited because of that? Has anything been written about this? Otherwise, leave it out. I don't want to get controversial, but it could be something of interest. Or not.
 * I think her career must have been limited - most men would have been awarded a PhD for the original research that she had completed by 1927 instead of the MSc she was awarded. However, I cannot find any papers or books that discuss this point but I will keep looking (as you likely know, there are some great feminist researchers out there who do write on the history of women in science). She was clearly trusted at the Imperial Bureau (put in charge, part-time working from home so she could look after the children, etc. - very rare in (Britain) in the 1930s). Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any information on her salaries?
 * No published records that I can find (I wish I could) - I am certain there are records in the special collections of the University of Leeds. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Was Albert stuck in the US as well? I lost track.
 * I have re-worded this and made it clear he returned to England by 1942. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems she was at Leeds for a long time. What was the timeline? Just lay it out for me briefly and then it may help to clarify. It may help me know whether it's me or the article that is jumbled a bit on that.
 * She was born there but then moved around the country as her father moved to different dioceses. From around 1910 she lived at Huddersfield and entered the University of Leeds in 1916. She was a research student there from 1919 to 1922 before becoming employed as Priestley's assistant. She moved into university halls in around 1922. She left Leeds for Cambridge in January 1930. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think everything from to  is great stuff but needs to move outside of that location. It looks like the section "Leeds and postgraduate life" is ten years of her life, Leeds time mixed with other time. I suggest the following
 * Change section "Life" to "Early life"
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Include in it information about her family of origin (parents, grandparents, siblings, where she was born, grew up, grade school, etc., in whatever order necessary)
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Education
 * Change "Education" from a 3-level to a 2-level (==) header. In here, talk only about her college education. This can include a summary of work she did as a research assistant, but not details (as you have already done, currently referring readers to the Career section for that). Make sure to wrap it up with when she graduated and what degree. That information is in the Career section and should be in Education.
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * She graduated in 1928 from Leeds but was still there in 1929. Was this paid work?
 * Basically, she obtained her MSc while working there - in similar way to how Beryl May Dent obtained hers. This seems to be a common trait for women in the 1920s. I think they were expected to obtain their undergraduate degree and then go off to teach rather than stay on and take a higher degree! In short, she was a paid researcher when she obtained her MSc, not a post-graduate student in the traditional sense. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Add a two-level (==) section "Personal life" before Legacy; if you find more about her death, it could be a section after that, or could anyway because it would include information about her cremation and ashes, so it would be large enough
 * Done. I am currently trying to find out more about how she died and the funeral details. I believe there was an obituary in the Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society and I am trying to obtain a physcial copy of the journal from the University of Leeds. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Include the following (in whatever order is best and with whatever subheadings are best): her interest in drama; the painting by William Roberts; meeting future husband, engagement, marriage; information from the war years section
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe somehow work the Names section information into Early life (for her father's name change and that she was usually called "Jane") and Legacy (for the name she used in authorship)
 * Done. Some of that information is now in the body and new footnotes. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Career
 * This looks like the official start of her career (unless she was doing paid work from 1928–1929 at Leeds, as I inquired about, above).
 * Yes - That's the start of her career at the Imperial Bureau. However, as discussed above, she was a paid researcher at the University of Leeds from 1922 to 1930. Hopefully, this is now clear in the text as well. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Legacy
 * It looks like this work was all done at Leeds? Except the ring-barking?
 * All that work was completed at Leeds - including the ring-barking. The ring-barking paper was published on the cusp of her leaving Leeds for Cambridge. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Family
 * Totally optional, but I made a family tree at page User:Eewilson/Scratchpad. If you think it could be stuck somewhere, please use it. If you don't, I will not be upset. Totally up to you.
 * I love it and have never come across this template before! I am going to include it in the Early life section but will work on it tomorrow in my sandbox (because I am still trying to understand how it works). Unfortunately, there is so much I still do not know. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now added the family tree to the Early life section. What a fantastic template (once I got the hang of it in my sandbox)! Thank you for teaching me on how to use it - your examples were very, very helpful indeed :). I have not added references to the tree as everything stated in there is referenced in the body of the Early life section. Gricharduk (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait to hear from you again unless I get another brainstorm. —Eewilson (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I added an anchor in front of the text about the painting and created a redirect Portrait of Miss Jane Tupper‑Carey in case anyone has interest. Doubt it will ever be an actual page, but it doesn't need to be. —Eewilson (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea and thank you very much for creating the redirect. Gricharduk (talk)

Images

 * Good choices, licenses all good. Too bad there's not a better picture of Ingham available! I'm sure you had that same thought. —Eewilson (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is horrible isn't it! There is one more that Mark Ingham has made available - where she is sat on the doorstep of her home. I am going to look at that one again now. Gricharduk (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Jumping back to the lead for a moment. Per MOS:INTRO, the lead should be less technical, saving details for later in the article. Somewhere in the Wikipedia documentation I read that most people don't read past the lead, so it should be understandible to the vast majority of readers. With that said, I make the following suggestions:
 * Probably replace here with non-technical words.
 * isolate cell walls — it's the "isolate" here that could cause confusion for some, but if you make some other changes, maybe could keep it
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * meristematic tissues — "growth tissue"?
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Vicia faba could be removed here and just use "broad beans" in the lead
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * fractionated — could use the word "separated"? and for "fractions" — perhaps "parts" or "pieces" (e.g., "They separated the isolated walls, analysed the pieces and concluded that the growth cells had walls containing protein.")
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * cork cambium — "cork layer"?
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * endodermis is probably okay, but if it reads well, could do "of the endodermal layer"
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe wikilink sub-warden
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "first honorary secretary" — is the title "first honorary secretary" or was she the first person to be appointed as honorary secretary? If the latter, you could write, "the first to be appointed honorary secretary" or somesuch
 * Done and clarified. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "whose aim was to found a chair in Italian" — whose aim? Her aim as the honorary secretary (or first honorary secretrary, depending on which it is...), or the British-Italian League's aim?
 * Done and clarified. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "was put in charge of the bureau after her deputy director, Penrhyn Stanley Hudson, fell ill." — probably don't need his name here, just use it later in Career section.
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a final sentence of the lead could be something like, "In the last years of her life, she and her husband travelled extensively. Ingham died in 1982 at Cambridge, her ashes scattered in Hayley Wood near those of Albert."
 * Done and added. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Take a look and see what you come up with then we'll look at it again. —Eewilson (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at this now - It is all excellent advice - thank you. I might take my time on this given it (lede) is probably the most important section. Gricharduk (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First attempt complete - see above. Gricharduk (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks better! Other things may come up as I delve into the rest of the article. One thing to think about, though. As the reader, why would I care about these things that she did? What was important about her discoveries and research? What was theorized prior to it? Not just for the lead, but for other areas in the article. Also, think about instead of breaking the Career section up into locations, maybe break it up into research subjects? —Eewilson (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Finished for the night. It's 3:30am and I'm fried. I'll pick it up tomorrow. Good work! —Eewilson (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry! Thank you very much lot for the thorough review (and your edits) - it has really improved the article. The "why" part (comments above) - it is a great suggestion. It would be similar to the legacy section in the Beryl May Dent article ... I will have a think. Gricharduk (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You weren't keeping me awake! When I need to sleep, I sleep. Usually. :) The Beryl Dent article is very well-written! Good work on that. Good work on this one as well. —Eewilson (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note - I am working on your recommendations in my sandbox. I might be a while but the structure looks better already - thank you. I will publish when complete and update the actions here. Gricharduk (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for letting me know. You are an amazing researcher. I look forward to reading more. —Eewilson (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Latest version
If you wish to use the tree and find it confusing, I'd be glad to make any changes if that would be easier. Just let me know.

I am looking forward to delving into the article updates today! Great work. —Eewilson (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Good evening or morning or whatever it is where you are! I fear I have led you astray and away from Summary style (I'm really bad about writing oh so many details.) This is looking very good. Three things for now. First, I'm wondering if her name should be used as "Ingham" throughout the article rather than "Tupper-Carey"? Currently, there seems to be a use of both. In the very beginning, obviousy giving her birth name makes sense, but going with what the MOS says as well as seeing some other articles and what they do, it seems likely that Ingham would be what should be used if that was the name she was known most by (other than in her academic writings). And when Albert is mentioned, he is called by given name. In the Publications section, rather than the mask for her name, it would then need to be the actual name on the publication since that would be different than Jane Ingham. I hope that made sense. I don't claim to be a good writer on talk pages. :) Second, good information on her siblings and I say keep the first names in the article, but likely too much with their full dates, marriages, etc., unless sister Betty stays relevant to the article. Stay focused on your subject — Jane Ingham, a clear summary of her life, why she is notable, and such. Third, in the lead, I'd take out the part in the first sentence about her parents (unless they are notable, but they don't have articles, so perhaps not) and go straight in the first sentence into "most notable for..." or similar wording. —Eewilson (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good evening or morning (same back! I am in Somerset, England, so morning here) Ah okay - all great advice. I will have a look at this in my sandbox, and when it looks a bit more consistent, I will let you know here. Thanks very much, Gricharduk (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I have implemented those points (to the best of my ability - which isn't saying very much!). Best regards, Gricharduk (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Continuing
Good early morning here (6:30 am US Eastern)! Good stuff! Jumping right in.

I did a little bit of prose tweaking. The following remains with questions of relevance and others. I will use bold in the quote followed by my comments.
 * Education

1. . (I changed "In 1908" to "At the age of ten".)

Am I reading this correctly in that she was only ten years old at the time? Was that young, implying that she was a prodigy (not just an early aptitude) in foreign language? (Although "prodigy" would be POV unless you reference or quote a reliable source.) Was this test and preliminary degree normally given to older students? (That you could add.) Was she the first girl to receive such a thing? (And that.) I think, if available, this information could add to the reader's understanding of Ingham.
 * Correct - she was ten. I have now looked at a few sources for what the "National Society of French Professors in England" did. In their own literature they describe the examinations as "degrees" but also as "examinations". I have looked at a few other newspaper reports from that period from across the county - most describe these tests as "examinations", but sometimes they are described as "Concours des Laureate", "certificates", and even "degrees". It is confusing, but my interpretation is that she passed (did very well) in a preliminary exmaination. So, I have changed it to that and added a quote from the newspaper saying she competed against the best girls' schools in England. Gricharduk (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Ambiguity as well as questioning the relevance of the following parts in bold. You don't necessarily need to remove the latter, but if not, add something to let the reader know why this is relevant.

(I added the 1919 part here because I had removed it from the previous sentence for flow.)
 * Noted - thank you. Gricharduk (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, but next

Does Redman King's maiden name matter here?
 * No! Good - removed. Gricharduk (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You may want to use a different word than "investigate" in one of those locations to avoid redundancy. E.g., "...who was studying enzymes...".
 * Done. I have re-worded these sentences. Gricharduk (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The "she" is ambiguous. Should "first class" and "honours" be capitalized
 * Agreed. I have removed this entirely as it is not relevant and concentrated on the fact that Redman King was warden when Ingham was staying at the hall. Gricharduk (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, why the information about Redman King? Was she a childhood friend? Did she meet her at Leeds and they became a lifelong friends (Annie was at her very small wedding)? That's important. Within the part I quoted, I think you may be intending to introduce up what led Ingham to Leeds, Weetwood Hall, and to study a bit of general zoology at the Citadel Hill Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association, Plymouth. What I mean by that is that it looks like maybe she had become friends with Redman King at Leeds, or known her from childhood, followed her to Leeds and/or to become a sub-warden at Weetwood Hall, and then followed her to Citadel Hill Laboratory. Is that accurate? If so, that can be clarified, not necessarily using my words, but something to let the reader know why Redman King is important to Ingham's education and life.
 * Yes exactly - your analysis is spot on! (that was a definite compliment) They met at Weetwood Hall and I have tried to be concise in the new edit. There are *lots* of letters between Ingham, Lyn Irvine, and Redman King (in the special collections of St John's College Library, University of Cambridge) where Ingham is meeting Redman King or Irvine or sending Redman King Irvine's latest book. Of course, these letters are primary sources but I wish someone would write a book on these people so I could reference it. Gricharduk (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's great! I know what you mean about that. I find much useful, but primary, information as well. —Eewilson (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time spent on this, your excellent analysis, and your edits to the article. Gricharduk (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. —Eewilson (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I like the changes. I'm going to try to see if I can get the tree to squish a bit so it doesn't exceed the Wikipedia page width. Then I'll give Lead through Education one final read and move on to Career (again). —Eewilson (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "tree to squish a bit" - That would great. I am very new (today!) to that template so your expert help is really appreciated. Lastly, I need to finish for the day (I have to travel for a work assignment) but I will pick-up tomorrow morning. Have a good rest of the day. Gricharduk (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Secret? I'm new to it as of yesterday! I'm just accustomed to cryptic codes because of my software engineering background. I'm just getting started for today. You have a good evening and safe travels! —Eewilson (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tree has been "squished". —Eewilson (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - it looks miles better! Gricharduk (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Career

Leeds


 * Relevancy? You could just say he was the chair of the botany department, because her being assistant to the chair is a bigger deal than assistant to a "regular" professor. But when he became chair and why likely doesn't matter for this article.
 * Agreed - It is not relevant and I have removed it. Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this sentence need restructuring? "She theorised ____ about the production of cellulose by plants and carried out a long series of investigations about this subject." Or something like that.
 * Done. I have restructured the entire section. Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Did she apply for the grand and receive it? Was it hard to get? Is this sentence (or maybe only part of it) relevant?
 * Done. I have removed it as it appears to be a grant to the University of Leeds (although used to fund Ingham's research). I also cannot find out any more about it (although there is a John Innes archive which I didn't discover before now). Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm wondering if these two sentences should be toward or at the beginning of this paragraph rather the end: Just take a look at the structure of the paragraph as well as the points that need to be presented and see what would be best.
 * Done. Agreed - a very good suggestion. Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding her degree award: Relevant? If not, remove that part of the sentence. I also think moving this sentence from the beginning of the second paragraph to the end of the first paragraph may make sense.
 * Done. Agreed. Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This part: Did she self-teach this skill? Did she develop this method? Was her teaching it to Preston something that helped his career and work? Did she use this method during her research? Might work that in somewhere when talking about it. If she had an important impact on Preston, or if there is something published that he said about her, could use that. I think it is important not just to report facts but also to import the relevancy of facts. I can make a list of hundreds of thousands of things I have done in my life, but what effect did they have and which are "notable" and to whom? (I know. I'm writing too much.).
 * Done. I have removed it. Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph of this subsection is interesting. Add "British botanist" before William Pearsall. You may end up moving this sentence around a bit, depending on future decisions. It may fit better in Legacy.
 * Done. I have re-worded that sentence and included it in the first paragraph (I may move it but I want to keep it). Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge


 * Relevancy? There may be. I am afraid being from the US and having never been to the UK, I cannot vouch for relevancy of locations. But as I read it, it seems "Plant Breeding Institute" and "Cambridge" may be relevant, that "School of Agriculture" is implied with "Plant Breeding Institute" (especially because it is Wikilinked), and "Downing Street" is not important, unless there was another Plant Breeding Institute with Cambridge on another street.
 * Done and agreed. Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See if you can prune this whole section to keep what's relevant while still focusing on Ingham. Ideas include leading with how important she was rather than simply working it in while describing the institute. I would like to see the relevancy of her translation skills closer to the front. You can do a couple of intro sentences, prune down some details, and still keep the section chronological, I think.
 * Completely agree! This section is now much reduced and focuses much more on Ingham. I decided to keep the end footnote on "Pen" as he is a very interesting character. Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. —Eewilson (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Personal life
I adore the changes you have made to those two sections (Education and Career)! (If adore isn't an appropriate emotion for Wikipedia GA reviews, then it should be.) It reads so well now. I think you are getting the gist. If you wish then to continue along this theme in the "Personal life" section, go ahead. I think it could use some of the same work. (I adore the blue quote box and the quote in it. Keep that for sure!)

Oh, I moved the photo of Tupper Carey back to the right side to avoid sandwiching the text in case of a smaller window (MOS:SANDWICH).

—Eewilson (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * :) I adore (seriously) your review comments - It has made me think about all the irrelevant content I have written for Beryl Dent. I added lots of extra information to that article in a vague attempt to move it to featured article status. I now realize this is not the way to go and I have a lot to learn. Anyway, I am going to look at that article again once we have finished this review. I saw your image change (thank you): I hope you don't mind, but I removed the image of "Cromer Terrace" as it improves the layout and does not add very much (the "grandfather" image is much more relevant). I will move on to the "Personal life" section and copyedit that. I will let you know here when I am done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I taken a first pass at the Personal life section - I have completed a great deal of pruning. Gricharduk (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You'll likely notice, but you have a Cite error showing up at the bottom of the References section. I don't want to get in there and clean it up because I know you are working right now, and I don't want to interrupt your edits.

—Eewilson (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops! Missed that one - thanks a lot - now fixed. Gricharduk (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed a pronoun issue in "Early life" in the paragraph about Ingham's father and Ingham's father's father (Tupper Carey). Read it over and sort it out, or sort me out if I'm the confused one.
 * Done (I think). Let me know if I have corrected what you were thinking about. Gricharduk (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh! I just remembered. When you mention that she was baptized, would you say that she was baptized Anglican and Wikilink it? (Unless it was another religion.) I think the clarification could be helpful.
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I think removing the photo you did was fine either way. I have no opinion on that! —Eewilson (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay great. Gricharduk (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Latest changes: —Eewilson (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking good! Great place to put that sentence. It works well.
 * Good job on Personal life! I think "Later life and death" looks good, but if you see anything, obviously feel free to change. However, I have no suggestions on it. Tomorrow, I will delve into "Legacy." (Or later today, rather.) Have a good day!
 * Ah great - thank you. You also have a great day. Gricharduk (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Legacy
I still haven't gotten my nap. :)
 * :) Good morning. Not good - I also could not sleep so have got up early to address the points below! Gricharduk (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You italicized total war (is in the "Personal life" section). Is that correct? I'm not sure. Maybe because it is a special term?
 * Good spot. To be honest, it looks like it should be a special term (that is why I put it in italics). However, I looked at a few BBC articles on this period of the war and they do not italicise it, so I have now removed the italics. I will be working on your (superb!) points below for the next hour or so - I will update here when I am done. Gricharduk (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The composition of the cell-wall at the apical meristem of stem and root in the Legacy section prose is italicized but in quotations in the source section because it is an article rather than a journal. Should it be in quotations in the prose as well?
 * I'm wondering, too, if the article name could be removed from the first sentence of that paragraph and instead, put a bit later phrased a bit like "They published their findings in ." Or something like that.
 * Done. I decided to remove "The composition of the cell-wall at the apical meristem of stem and root" from the sentence. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Same with the italicization (vs. quotes), as well as placement, of The Development of the Hypocotyl of Helianthus annuus considered in connection with its Geotropic Curvatures.
 * Done. I have removed and re-worded. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should it be "came"?
 * Done. Agreed. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should "is" be removed?
 * Done. Agreed. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused here: Are you citing Wood (1926), Tripp, Moore & Rollins (1951), Dieckert & Snowden (1960), and King & Bayley (1963)? Or does your citation (currently number 42, Lamport, Derek Thomas Anthony (1965)) cite them? If you are citing them, they should be as normal inline citations with a number. If you are not and you just want to give information about the authors who questioned their results (the latter important), then determine what is relevant and prune accordingly. If you do give author names, it will need to include the typical "  " as in "British botanist" then full name, which may be a bit much, so see what you can come up with.
 * Just a quick update on this. I have just discovered that "Frederic M. Wood" is actually "Florence Mary Wood"! She was a post-doctural researcher at Birkbeck College and was one of the first women to be elected to a fellowship of the Chemical Society. It just shows that you should not believe everything you read in scientific papers/books. Anyway, I will correct this (with references) and carry-on. If you had not pushed this point then I would have never known - thanks a lot! Gricharduk (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful! Another woman scientist! —Eewilson (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Completely agree - I have re-worded that entire section. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * NOTE: parenthetical referencing was deprecated by consensus for Wikipedia articles in September 2020 (if interested, see WP:PARREF for the archive of the long and drawn-out discussion about the topic, or click in the TOC on that page, item 1.7, to see the final decision).
 * Done. Thank you linking to WP:PARREF - I didn't know about the decision. I also got it "into my head" that parenthetical referencing was entirely acceptance in biology (and in science, and particularly mathematics). However, I am no "fan" of it and I want to follow best-practice, so I have reverted that section to normal referencing. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A bit awkward to read.
 * Done. Yes, I admit it was awful, and basically repeats the sentence before it. I removed it in its entirety. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Same as I stated before about references: Kaldewey (1957) and Salisbury (1916).
 * Done. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at those things when you can, and I'll check in later. —Eewilson (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! Good morning. I did finally get some sleep until my cat woke me, as usual. I added a phrase in Early life: "Despite his given name being Albert Darrell," before "he was known as 'Tupper' to his friends" because by the time we get to the quote, it was a bit confusing (or I was confused) regarding who we were discussing because of the photo of Tupper Carey (which I think should be kept!) that is directly next to the text. If the grammar of my phrase could be cleaned up, feel free. I make no apologies for grammar-fuzziness within an hour after waking. —Eewilson (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad you got some sleep! Noted on the clarification - thank you. I am very happy with that and no changes from me. Gricharduk (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Photos and miscellaneous
Great job on the changes to Legacy! A few things I have seen and even modified today:

Questions/issues:
 * Was her father's middle name spelled "Darrell" or "Darell"? If a source has one in the title, keep whatever is in the title. However, in the prose (unless it's a quote), you want to have the correct spelling. Take a look.
 * Damn! Good spot. It is spelt "Darell" (and for their son's name as well) but I do acknowledge there are many instances of it spelled "Darrell" in the sources. However, the deed poll change of name and his obituary in The Times spell it as "Darell". I have corrected this in the article. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In source titled "The Wedding of Mr. M. T. Sadler and Miss Edith Tupper Carey", there is no hyphen in Edith's last name. If that is accurate from the actual source title, that's fine. Just bringing it up in case.
 * That's what the headline says in the paper i.e. no hyphen. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A sentence with "Ingham joined the university amateur dramatics society..." Was this at Leeds, and if so, should it say she joined the University of Leeds amateur dramatics society? Also, was the society actually named that? If so, you could put it in title case. If not, it can stay as is.
 * The source (The Stage newspaper) says "Leeds University Amateurs" (in title case) so I have added that to the sentence. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At the end of the last sentence in Personal life, can it be followed by another sentence that tells us how long they stayed in the US? If you have that information, that is. When did they return to Cambridge?
 * I did see somewhere that they (Ingham and the children) returned to England by 1945, but for the life of me, I cannot remember where I saw it. I will see if I can find/remember the source and update here. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Minor things I did:
 * There were Wikilinks to sections in articles when there exists redirects to those sections. I changed them to use the redirects. This serves the primary purpose of making it so that if someone changes the article subheader, your link doesn't break as well as if someone later moves or changes it and changes the redirect, things will run smoothly.
 * Ah okay - I didn't know that - thanks a lot. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There were some locations where there was a hyphen that didn't seem to be a hyphen. I replaced them. For a few, I could use Nbh, but some needed the actual symbol from the keyboard (source citations).
 * Noted - thanks a lot for doing that. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I viewed the article on my phone in the app and in the browser. This is always a good thing to do when you are working on an article. Photos show up differently there in that they will be in the exact location you have put them in the code. So, I moved some of the photos to locations better suited, and they are now good for a computer browser, the Wikipedia app on a phone, and the mobile version of Wikipedia in a phone browser (e.g., Safari on an iPhone). I didn't check on a tablet, but it should be fine now.
 * Good tip - I just looked at the article on my 'phone. Your image layout looks really good. Thank you also for adjusting the size of the infobox image. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed two photos to find ones better suited and easier to view. I put simple captions but no alts. You are exceptionally good with alts (oh so good), so if you could add them, that would be wonderful. Feel free to change the captions (and the photos!) if you choose.
 * I didn't think the photo of Citadel Hill Laboratory added value. Instead, I found a good photo of the Botany House at Leeds (which is a listed building as a bonus) which seems should be where she studied and worked. Correct me if I am wrong.
 * Agreed - I could not find a good image of the Citadel Hill Laboratory (apart from the one used in the main article where there are a bunch of smiling botanists in front of it!). I have now added the alt descriptions. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also saw little value in the Millington Road photo (nor is Millington Road mentioned in the prose). So, I replaced it with a neutral photo of someone punting on the River Cam in Cambridge. Please review.
 * Agreed - I had removed the Millington Road sentences from the text so it makes little sense to keep the image. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I created a new ring-bark picture as a derivative of the existing one which is cropped and exposed a bit more. It allows us to see a bit more detail, doesn't take up as much space because it is now landscape instead of portrait, and fits nicely in the section. (Note, this not necessary for GA, but sometimes I like to play around with images.)
 * This is where experience tells - I wish I had done that - thanks a lot. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I created a higher-resolution apical meristem diagram just for kicks. (Also not necessary for GA.)
 * I see - you could do that because it is a SVG file rather than a JPEG or PNG. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved my favorite blue-box quote to the left and tested different window widths to make sure it doesn't do any text sandwiching with the image in that section (or my favorite word, "squishing"). I like the location and it works fine. Change it back if you wish.
 * It looks really good where you have put it. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry if photos "run over" to another section. As much as we try, with different screen resolutions, browsers, font sizes, window widths, and all, we can really only see it on what we use. I did, however, use the Clear template at the end of the Legacy section so that all images would end before Publications begin.
 * That’s also useful to know as I am planning to write a new article after this review (about a composer and pianist as I literally know nothing about the subject - I like to challenge myself!). Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, author-date citations such as (Grichard 2021) or Grichard, 2021, etc., are definitely used in scientific literature! However, they are now just deprecated on Wikipedia for the reasons stated.
 * Thanks for telling me - I won’t repeat that mistake. I must try to follow these discussions on Wikipedia. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to give it another full read tonight then I'll be getting in-depth into the sources. Save the best (hardest) for last. I will need to ask you to email me copies of the locked source documents. You can do that through Wikipedia. If it doesn't let you attach files, we'll go to regular email from there unless you object, in which case we can figure out another way. I probably won't have the brains to get into the references until tomorrow and doubt I'll finish them in one day.
 * I am happy with email or sharing the files some other way. I will do some prep - I will download the articles from the British Newspaper Archive, The Times, etc. The downloaded files have odd filenames so I will attempt to rename them so they match the article reference. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I have just emailed you a link to the zipped version of the newspaper PDFs. Gricharduk (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Great job!

—Eewilson (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your efforts, edits, knowledge, and active participation in this reivew - it is very much appreciated. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Review the lead
Good evening! I'm getting ready to start the reference review. Now that the prose is all cleaned up and likely stable, you may want to read the article from scratch, then decide if you want to make any adjustments to the lead based on what is in the article. I have a hint about that. When I read an article I am working on using my phone once in awhile, I see things that may be confusing or unclear (or even spelling or grammatical errors!) which I didn't notice before. It may help or not, but try that. More later! —Eewilson (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good morning! Thank you very much for starting the reference review. I am going to review all the references in the "Early life" section and see if I can find a better (more comprehensive) reference for the family line, key dates, marriages, etc. I am then going to review/edit the lead as I always find that most difficult part of writing an article. I am sorry about those three newspaper PDFs - that seems to be the resolution they download at. I am probably going to use the newspaper archive viewer to get a screenshot of those articles and then I will email those screenshots to you. I will repond to each point below but I may be some time (a few hours). Thank you Gricharduk (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First pass at updating the lede/lead (good sugesstion) completed. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Review summary
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: