Talk:Nancy Marcus/GA1

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

Reviewer: MX (talk · contribs) 20:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Review
Hi there. Happy to review your first GA. The article looks ripe for promotion. I'll be going through each of the sections and posting here if I find any concerns / have any questions. I will check some of the sources too for integrity. Stay tuned. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 20:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate it. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Done with review. Will put article on hold! MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 15:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I made the revisions based on your review...thank you! Thsmi002 (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

 * – per WP:EUPHEMISM, "passed away" is generally not used. "Died" is fine.

Infobox

 * – per WP:INFOBOXCITE, details in the infobox should be cited elsewhere in the article. Can you add that she was succeeded by Riley somewhere in the body paragraphs?

Early life and education

 * – I would say "In her senior year, Marcus ..."


 * – I saw from her CV online that it was not capitalized: "Genotypic and phenotypic variation in the sea urchin Arbacia punctulata (Gray)". Can you please double check and amend if necessary? I personally would remove the all caps. It attracts too much attention when glancing through the article.


 * – When you first mention National Science Foundation, please add a (NSF) after it so we know this is what follows.

✅: the comments above. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Career beginnings at Woods Hole
✅
 * – Was he a professor / scientist? If so, I would phrase "scientist Zheng Zhong", like you did with Grice.

Research at Florida State University

 * – add (FSU) after mention and use this moving forward.


 * – change to ASLO and add (ASLO) after Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography in the previous sentences.

✅
 * – already linked before, so remove per WP:OVERLINK; keep NSF.

Dean of graduate school

 * – use FSU


 * – since this was in the past, I would add a quote on quote: "[was] a compelling ..."

✅
 * – FSU instead

Personal life
✅
 * – FSU Alumni Center Grand Ballroom, if you want. Not sure about this one since it is not a standalone mention of FSU.

Awards and honors

 * – FSU


 * – FSU

✅
 * – FSU Honors, Scholars, and Fellows House, but I'm unsure about this one too.

Comments from Noswall59
Hi, I've just bumped into this article and noticed it was up for GAN. It seems to me that it is a good summary of her career, but it seems to say very little about her research and how it has been received by other scientists; if the article were to meet criteria 3a, one would expect to see both a summary of her academic output and a summary of the critical engagement with it, as well as mention of her work's wider significance. As it stands, I would actually fail if that weren't added. Wouldn't you agree MX? —Noswall59 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC).
 * I have always rather admired your approach ; however in this case, your biting attempt to derail a GA nomination, which was clearly identified as a first submission by may cause me to reevaluate your collegial spirit. Far better to have taken a bit of time and helped improve the article, or coach Thsmi002 in improving it, than simply drive by and make the above comment to fail the nomination.  I have added information on her research career that evaluates her reception among her peers. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * . I'm very sorry if I offended anyone with my comment, especially ; I will start by saying that I wasn't aware that this was the nominator's first nom, but I believe I was fair and justified in my comments. In fact, I stated quite clearly that it is "a good summary of her career". But I was correct in saying that nothing about her research was summarised in the article, which is clearly a substantial omission when evaluating an academic against the GA criteria (3a). My issue was not with the nominator, but with the decision of the reviewer, to whom I addressed my comments; and in doing so, I believe I clearly outlined my problem and suggested a way forward (i.e. to add more about the subject's research). My issue was that this had already been placed on hold pending mostly minor copyedits; had I said nothing, this would have passed without summarising any of her academic output; this is clearly inappropriate for an academic, regardless of the quality of the rest of the article (which is otherwise very high in this case). I care a lot about maintaining consistent standards across GAs and I will quite happily say so when I see something about to pass which doesn't quite make the mark. This is why I asked MX (again, not the nominator) to think again about their decision to place this on hold without making comments about its comprehensiveness.
 * As to your comment about me not fixing the issue, as my recent edit history will attest I have been extremely busy offline and have not been on here much for the last week or so (until yesterday), which is why I left a short comment here. Additionally, marine biology is not my area; I am not bringing this to GAN; nor am I the one formally reviewing it. As such, the onus (in this particular circumstance) is not on me more than anyone else to make corrections, and in truth it is usually held to be on the nominator; we are all volunteers here, and certainly my decision not to do correct this omission has no bearing on the validity of my comment. On a final note, I'm am upset that you think my criticism about this article (which in no way aimed to have this GAN failed, merely reconsidered before going back on hold) makes me uncollegial or constitutes biting behaviour; I've only ever tried to "get along" with people here, which, as you point out, seems to have come through in any interactions we've had to date. I have long respected your work, and continue to work both to encourage other editors, maintain high standards and improve the project as a whole. In that spirit, I would like to thank you for your contribution to this article, which fully satisfies my initial concern; I hope that this hasn't marred your image of me nor prevent future collaborative efforts; and I wish everyone involved in this all the best for the future. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC).


 * Hi there. I'm sure that's what intended to do when he/she added Marcus' work at the "Selected works" section. I'm not sure what Thsmi002's background is, but if he/she does not have a marine biology backbone, it would have been very difficult to be able to expand on this part of the GA criteria since it requires a profound understanding of the topic and how research works in this specific field. It's very easy to get off topic in these biographies and I think Thsmi002 did well in keeping it readable and adding the sources at the bottom for inquisitive readers. I was going to ask Thsmi002 to try and expand it a bit more if he/she could, but  has now taken care of it (thank you!). What do you think of the article now, Noswall59? MX (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 19:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's great, I've replied to SusunW's comments more fully above; I'm satisfied that the article meets 3a now. It's definitely something to keep an eye out in future – an academic's research is obviously a key component of their work alongside their institutional career trajectory. Cheers and all the best, —20:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC).
 * I think more than anything else, I was truly surprised by your comment, as, as I said, I have always admired your work. Perhaps I took the tone as a bit more reproachful than you intended. Perhaps you missed that Thsmi002 identified it as their first submission ever, which was acknowledged by MX's first comment in the review, which is what raised my hackles. Thanks so much for your detailed explanation above and please do not be upset. I can assure you that there will be no fall-out from this minor incident in our future interactions, as your intent, stated above was to allow for improvement. I am glad I was able to add information to satisfy the import of her work and appreciate you coming back to review the information. SusunW (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, everyone. I will definitely take this as a learning lesson for my next GARs. Article is ready for promotion. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 04:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)