Talk:John Macleod (physiologist)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zad68 (talk · contribs) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Status = Not listed for GA at this time
Starting review... Looks like an interesting scientist. 16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Finished first read-through. Without making a comment about the actual factual history as found in reliable sources, this biography reads like it is pushing a POV, namely something along the lines of "Although it's most commonly reported that Banting had the biggest role in the discovery of insulin, really Macleod's contributions are underappreciated, and besides Banting was a jerk and a liar." This may all be 100% true, but that's how it feels and it really should not for a GA article. I'm sure you've heard the saying "An article is written with NPOV when you can't tell where the author's sympathies lie," and that's not the case with this article, I feel the article author's POV. There's also some usual realtively easy to clean up grammar bits. Haven't looked through the sourcing yet but I see this article is using Rosenfeld 2002, which Insulin doesn't use. Can I get your feedback on this? 16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that Banting acted exceedingly emotionally and that he deliberately tried to minimize Macleod's role is well supported by all available sources. I honestly didn't know anything about this controversy before starting to research, and this is the genuine impression one gets from written accounts on the subject. Insulin is rather light on sources and background, but for example the reference Bliss (1993) in there says essentially the same: that Banting had serious emotional issues and that Best went quite far to ensure his role was glorified at the cost of Macleod's and Collip's public image after Banting died. This is factual history, and if you have any suggestion on how to make it feel less "involved", I'd be happy to hear it. I even left out some of the most juicy parts, such as Banting describing Macleod as “grasping, selfish, deceptive, self-seeking and empty of truth … unscrupulous … a coward and a skulking weakling…. ”, because that would really be over the top.
 * As for going into excessive detail about insulin research... that is simply by far the most notable period of his life. Not much is written about the rest in sources that were available to me (it was quite difficult to piece together the period from 1903 to 1920), so this is in accordance with WP:DUE. — Yerpo Eh? 18:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, a perfectly reasonable response. I'll read the most-used sources and try to figure out a way to get the prose a little more detached.    18:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comments below describing the reasons why I think there's more work and time needed than is normally allowed for during a GA review, and so I'm leaning toward not listing this as GA at this time. 21:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Not listing this article for GA at this time per the discussion below--generally due to concerns about GA criterion "stays focused on the topic". 17:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

MOS compliance

 * (1b) per WP:HONORIFICS, "FRS" should be added to his name in the Infobox
 * Done. — Yerpo Eh? 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

General

 * (1a) There are sentences with introductory clauses or phrases that aren't set off with commas, for example "In 1905 he became interested in carbohydrate metabolism...". I think for correct grammar there needs to be a comma after the introductory clause or phrase: "In 1905, he became interested in carbohydrate metabolism..."
 * Usage guides no longer recommend this, except where the omission creates a "garden path sentence" (such as "In 1905 men from the 1st batallion ..."). I can provide a couple of references for this if you wish. --Stfg (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) watch uses of the phrase "apart from" as sometimes "additionally" is meant
 * Fair enough; it might be a bit colloquial too. I've rephrased all three instances. --Stfg (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (4) Read Insulin, it's a totally different story... I'm not sure which is the correct account
 * It isn't all that different, only less detailed and with a slightly different focus. The few parts that might be understood as contradicting this article are unsourced. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

 * (4) "most controversial acts" -- "most" isn't exactly supported, it's hard to quanatify amounts of controversy to come up with a defensible relative evaluation like "most", consider removing it
 * Fixed. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1b) "according to many" -- "many" is a WP:WEASEL word here, can those who make up the "many" be specified?
 * Fixed. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "an independent revision acknowledged" -- is "an independent review acknowledged" meant?
 * Fixed. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Biography

 * (1a) "In 1903 Macleod" --> "In 1903, Macleod"
 * Please see above. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * any reason why "Case Western Reserve Univserity" isn't also wikilinked?
 * Western Reserve University is a redirect to Case Western Reserve University. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "During World War I he" --> "During World War I, he"
 * Please see above. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "After the war he" --> "After the war, he" ... more like this
 * Please see above. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "on the subject since then" --> "on the subject afterwards or later" or "and later published a series of scientific papers and several monographs on the subject."
 * Replaced with "from then on", which I think is the meaning intended. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "Apart from that, Macleod actively engaged in education: he was a popular lecturer and an influential contributor to the development of the six-year course in medicine at the University of Toronto" is clunky and a bit excessively wordy, consider: "Additionally, Macleod was a popular lecturer and an influential contributor to the development of the six-year course in medicine at the University of Toronto."
 * Yes, much better. Done. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1b) "got on extremely well with each other" -- "extremely well" sounds like editorializing and "got on with each other" is a bit too informal for an encyclopedia
 * Removed. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (4) "impulsive Banting"... the biography is starting to side a little too obviously with Macleod over Banting
 * Removed. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "Macleod refused co-authorship" -- why?? it would seem important to know
 * I'll leave this to the nominator, as this is more to do with content than with prose. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "only Banting and Best were listed" -- listed as authors?
 * Done. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "enough extract" ... by this time I've forgotten what kind of extract we were talking about, "enough pancreas extract"
 * Done. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "Together, the team" -- I'm confused at this point, is Macleod still part of 'the team'?
 * I'll leave this to the nominator, as this is more to do with content than with prose. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "Collip threatened to leave ... and only because of the encouragement ... did they calm down" ... I think it should be "did he calm down", this sentence is talking about Collip right?
 * Leaving this to the nominator, as it could include Banting too. (I agree it needs clarifying.) --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It included everybody. Fixed. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (1a) "In the summer of 1923 Macleod, Collip and Best resumed other research, while Banting remained in Toronto" -- where did Collip and Best go?
 * I'll leave this to the nominator, as this is more to do with content than with prose. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I made this part more Macleod-centric. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (3), (4) Clearly Macleod's involvement in the discovery of insulin was important, but was only three years of his career, he was only one of several working on a team, and yet this history takes nearly all the Biography. Is undue weight being placed on this here?  This section is looking rather WP:COATRACK or WP:POVFORK as compared to Insulin.
 * (3) -- On rereading this, I think the issue here is that you've written a really good and interesting history of the discovery of insulin, and the personalities involved in the discovery, but this article's content as it currently stands isn't working as a biography of Macleod. The actors in the history section are the others, mostly Banting.  The whole paragraph starting "The first human clinical trial was unsuccessful. Banting..." doesn't have Macleod as the main actor in it at all.  What needs to be done is to work the very nice content you have developed here about the history of insulin into Insulin, and to recast the section in this biography of Macleod to be Macleod-centered.  This will probably make the history section here much shorter, which is OK.  I think this part of the article has developed this way because it summarizes Rosenfeld's Insulin: Discovery and Controversy which is about the history of insulin and not the history of Macleod in particular.  I think this would also make fixing the POV issues I was describing much easier to fix.  To do this properly would, I think, require more effort and time than is normally expected during a GA review so I am leaning toward not listing it as GA at this time so that you can do a proper job without the time pressure.  Would that be acceptable to you?    21:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but unfortunately I don't have time nor energy right now to do a Macleod-centered summary. I still feel that events around the discovery of insulin deserve prominent treatise in this biography as well (for reasons stated in my first reply), but if you think that the current version is over the top, feel free to reject the nomination. I won't be holding grudges over it. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it and glad you understand. I just can't in good conscience list it as GA as-is, and as you state you're busy with other things, the right thing to do at this time is to not list it until you've got the time you need.  I agree with you that that Macleod's involvement in the discovery of insulin was indeed the most important thing in Macleod's career and should feature prominently, but for this biography article it needs to be recast to center on Macleod's actions.  Take a look at how the Royal Society's obituary does it.  When you have time, do come back to this and nominate it again.  I hope it doesn't languish in the queue for too long like it did last time... if it does and you'd like my involvement again, let me know and I'll pick it up.  If you'd rather another reviewer handle it, that's fine too.  Thanks for all the work you've put in on this.   17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Awards and honours

 * "His contribution to science is now recognized by the broad public, even in Canada." -- 'even in Canada' sounds like editorializing
 * As implied by the rest of the text, Macleod's reputation in Canada was hit the worst. This was in part because Banting was regarded a hero (the first Canadian to have received the Nobel prize and all), but explaining this would detract from the subject even further. — Yerpo Eh? 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Media

 * Nice and appropriate selection of images, good captions, no apparent licensing and copyright problems

Sourcing


In this table:
 * Source lists the source as cited in the article
 * Seems WP:RS? means, "Does this source appear to meet WP:RS for reliable sourcing?"
 * Use OK? means, is the source used appropriately in the article? For the review, a few selected sources will be spot-checked to ensure they aren't plagiarized and support the article content.   indicates the source was not spot-checked.
 * Notes will summarize problems found and what needs to be done to fix them