Talk:Jeannette Piccard/GA1

GA Sweeps review
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 26, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Though the article is well referenced, it fails criterion 1a, that "the prose is clear". I've tried to correct some of the most egregiously poor language, but parts are just so badly written that it's entirely incomprihensible. Take a sentence like "During the 1980s, Gene Roddenberry most likely named Captain Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek for one or both of the twin brothers Auguste Piccard and Jean Felix Piccard, and derived Jean-Luc from her husband's name." Besides from the fact that it's out of place, it's hard to understand what it even means. There is also a tendency to use long, convoluted sentences where the meaning is hard to extract. The errors are so profound that it is hard to imagine any quick fixes, I will therefore delist the article forthright. Lampman (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Lampman. This comes as a complete surprise to me. No notice was given on the article's talk page. So I guess you just decided it is such bad prose, you'd just delist it. Sorry. I am an editor and not a very good writer. But I do object to this action and will just have to ask for a reassessment. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "There are currently 421 nominations listed and 320 waiting to be reviewed." so I can finish what I am working on and take care of this next. -SusanLesch (talk)

Hi. The truth is that in 90% of cases where we review articles for sweeps, we end up making elaborate reviews without anyone taking action. If you want to rework this, I'll make sure you'll be able to circumvent the queue. You should probably list it on the GAN page so as not to violate protocol, but if you let me know I will get on it as soon as possible. This is probably easier than listing it for GAR. Lampman (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall only one other GA that was "swept" (TCF Bank Stadium). And it was not delisted, because I fixed it. Same for FAR. I think you ought to reexamine your practices. Automatic delisting is not cool. I for one easily might have missed this. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominated again for GA in "Natural sciences" under Miscellaneous. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lampman, at the time I wrote this article, I was too close to it. (Much of it started with an interview of a family member.) Hope you can accept my apology and thanks for putting up with criticism. This will be a much, much better biography now. Your review helped a great deal. The article is not there yet but it's on the way. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)