Talk:M. J. Thirumalachar/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I propose to take on this review. I will read the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

First reading

 * "M. J. Thirumalachar was born ..." - Could you clarify, or split this sentence. It is currently unclear to which of his parents the second half refers.✅
 * "He served out his regular career at HAL, superannuating as the superintendent of research in 1975." - This is a bit technical, and if you are going to use the acronym HAL, I think you should introduce it in the previous sentence. ✅
 * What on earth was he doing in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Minnesota Medical School? Doesn't sound likely at all and I can't see the pediatrics bit in the cited sources. ✅ added citations, expanded sentence --jojo@nthony (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikilink: peptaibol, Emericellopsis (needs italics too), chemotherapeutants ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a number of places in the article where I would include the definite article "the" in places where Indian English does not seem to think it necessary. NOTED --jojo@nthony (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the lead, now that I have read the whole article, I see a number of citations in this section. It should not be necessary to have any citations in the lead, because it is supposed to be a summary of the main body of text, where all important facts should be cited. In this instance there is information in the lead on antifungal antibiotics that is not present elsewhere in the article. ✅ citations moved to the body of the article. --jojo@nthony (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * changes made as per assessment. --jojo@nthony (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
 * The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research. There is a lack of consistency among the citations. The authors should be listed consistently, preferably with the surname first; #46 needs to be in lower case; "p." should be used for a single page and "pp." where there is a range; date formatting should be uniform. ✅--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's better.
 * The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
 * The article is neutral.
 * The article is stable.
 * The images are relevant and are suitably licensed. The caption of the dead fly image could explain why it is relevant to the article. ✅ --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's better.
 * changes made as per comments.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Overall assessment: I am satisfied that the article now meets the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate --jojo@nthony (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)