Talk:John B. Fenn/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * needs more information in the lead and some prose spots that could use clarification
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * This is an article about Fenn, so why do we devote so much space in the lad to the information about Wuthrich? Suggest culling everything about Wuthrich from the lead, it's not germane to Fenn.
 * I culled most of it, just mentioning that he was awarded the other half of the award. With the additional info on Fenn added later, I think the balance is better.
 * The lead is too short for the size of the article - suggest incorporating a bit on where Fenn was born, about the lawsuit, and his publications. The lawsuit especially needs coverage in the lead, as it occupies three paragraphs in the article body but is not mentioned at all in the lead.
 * Exapnded the lead, now covers his publications, and the lawsuit. I think I hit the main points, please let me know f you think I am still missing something.
 * Early life:
 * A.B. degree? Link or explanation? Not everyone is going to be familiar with US degrees.
 * Swapped it out for bachelor's degree, with a wikilink
 * "Despite his success, Fenn always felt that his mathematical skills were a hindrance in his career." Despite what success?
 * Added "future" to clarify.
 * Research:
 * "Fenn and his colleague James Mullen became disenchanted with the direction of work at Monsanto, and they resigned together in 1943." We never hear that he went to work FOR Monsato? How/when did he do so? What job did he hold?
 * The victim of some reorganization I did with the article. I added the info abut when he started at Monsanto, and what he did there.
 * "After the dispute with Yale over his forced retirement and the rights to his invention of electrospray ionization, Fenn moved to Richmond, Virginia to..." First we hear of this dispute... suggest "a dispute" instead of "the dispute"..
 * Agreed, and changed.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I appreciate your time.  I believe i have addressed everything that has been raised here.  I'd also like to thank you for your copyedits and other changes.  Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done, or if there is a problem with how these issues were addressed.  Canada Hky (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The victim of some reorganization I did with the article. I added the info abut when he started at Monsanto, and what he did there.
 * "After the dispute with Yale over his forced retirement and the rights to his invention of electrospray ionization, Fenn moved to Richmond, Virginia to..." First we hear of this dispute... suggest "a dispute" instead of "the dispute"..
 * Agreed, and changed.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I appreciate your time.  I believe i have addressed everything that has been raised here.  I'd also like to thank you for your copyedits and other changes.  Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done, or if there is a problem with how these issues were addressed.  Canada Hky (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)