Talk:Marcus Ward Lyon Jr./GA1

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

Reviewer: Jebus989 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to take this review. At first glance, this will not be a quick fail so I will perform a full review. Additionally, I have institutional access to the Just (1942) obit, allowing proper inspection of the attributed claims  Jebus989 ✰ 15:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

❌ At this point I'm going to fail this GA review per item #6 of the GA quick fail criteria: The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations. I encourage you to resubmit this article for review when this issue has been addressed, examples are provided below. If you feel this is an inaccurate assessment, you are free to seek the opinions of a second reviewer or to discuss with myself. Overall, I found it to be an interesting and thorough article on a lesser-known subject which could make a great GA when these issues have been addressed.  Jebus989 ✰ 18:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Major issues

 * Some of the article is too closely paraphrased from the Seventy-five years of mammalogy source, note that this reference is not public domain, or published using a WP compatible licence (it's CC-BY-NC). Here are some examples:


 * The following are examples which, in my opinion, are too closely paraphrased from the Just (1942) obit:
 * These are from the third reference, McIntosh (1990):


 * Thanks for catching these. I'll work on fixing these when I get home tonight and have more time to potentially restructure sentences, paragraphs, and sections. –  Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to fix all of these, except for the one discussing the American Society of Mammalogists. I worded the first part of that sentence independently, using a completely different source (using noting he was the "7th president" *and* a giving correct date range, not an incorrect date from the obituary).  The second half of that sentence is sufficiently reworded from its cited source, IMO.  The phrase "president of the American Society of Mammalogists" cannot be easily changed if I can only state that he was the president.  –  Maky  « talk » 02:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor prose issues
You may find some of these over nitpicky, and of course they are open to discussion and to being ignored.

Lead

 * The third sentence has 4 or 5 clauses which make uncomfortable reading, I suggest two sentences, e.g. the first could be:
 * Thanks. Done. – Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. – Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the following sentence meets WP:LEAD as summarising one of the article subjects most important aspects. More interesting aspects of his history could be his military rank, herbarium creation or some of his honours.
 * I could add the others (after we discuss this), but the event was significant to his life and had a profound impact on his career. I don't see a problem removing the city name or maybe summarizing it a bit differently. –  Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEADCITE, a citation may still be required on either the specific claims of the paper count or the president duration. I relise that this are adequately referenced later, and also that the DYK reviewer did not feel it needed citing in the lead so this is totally optional—my point is just that the lead doesn't need to be devoid of citations.
 * I prefer to leave the lead without citation unless absolutely necessarily. The reason is this: If you include one citation because one fact may or may not be contested, then what's to stop people from coming in and contesting every other fact in the lead?  I've seen it before—people will say that since some things are cited and others aren't, then the uncited facts are unreliable and that everything needs to be cited.  If I can manage to remember an example article, I'll post a diff... but I have seen people post citation needed templates all over the lead on articles with just one or two lead citations.  I don't want to start down that slippery slope. –  Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You introduce his wife in the first paragraph but give her name on the second mention in the second paragraph.
 * Fixed. – Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally think "ardent conservationist" is only valid if you use the quotation (as you did earlier), else per NPOV he just became a conservationist. I'd recommend either removing "ardent" or adding quote marks and the citation.
 * Good point. Fixed. –  Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Early life...

 * The following passage duplicates "Watertown Arsenal near Boston", maybe the em-dashed clause could be removed.
 * Oops... fixed. – Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops... fixed. – Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I also note sentences making specific claims without direct citations, though I assume this occurs when one reference supports multiple preceding sentences (I'll look at referencing after).
 * You are correct. Having gone through WP:FAC many times, I was once asked to remove duplicate citations.  I have stuck with that pattern. –  Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Career

 * At the start of each section I like to reintroduce the subject with either his last name or full name rather than "he" or similar (I note you've done this in all the other sections).
 * Done. – Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me how this claim:, adds up; though I note it is stated in the reference. In 1901, it seems Lyon was still completing his MD (while also possible in Venezuela?).
 * His teaching career started in 1897 at North Carolina Medical College, and there may have been years where he did not teach. But I can only go by my sources.  It seems about right, though there may be a year or two unaccounted for.  If it's a serious problem, the statement can be removed. –  Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is the USNM renaming, i.e., not mentioned in the first reference to USNM in the Career section?
 * Fixed. – Maky  « talk » 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)