Talk:Nessa Carey/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well-written article, I'll take it on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Nearly all the following comments are minor editing details.

Lead section

 * The lead needs to summarize article, not just state she's an author. Go through the article section by section and briefly summarize what each section says, i.e. she worked as a forensic scientist ...
 * Thanks for rearrangement, but it still needs more detail to summarize the article fully please.
 * I have made further edits on the lead section. I'm struggling with this as I thought the lead was meant to be short and punchy. Please let me know if this is now ok. JulieMay54 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly better. The lead is not meant to be "short and punchy" like a newspaper subheading. It is meant to summarize the whole article for the general reader who may not wish to read all of it, in 3 paragraphs, maybe 4 for a big article.
 * I have made some more tweaks in the lead and fixed the references. What happens with this process now? JulieMay54 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Infobox: put the book titles in italics. Fields: perhaps there are slightly too many. (Darwin has "Natural history, geology". Hmm.)

Education and career

 * Ideally we say where she went to school.


 * Style is a little too chatty, drop the "she realised she loved..." and just say she decided to go into research.


 * No good saying she has had work published in journals: that is visible from the publications list. Please remove that one-sentence paragraph.

Books
"Carey's books and lectures explain developments in epigenetics to a scientifically interested general audience."
 * Some copy-editing is needed, e.g. "Carey's books are aimed at explaining developments in epigenetics to a general audience who is scientifically interested. She also actively presents this information in lectures, presentations and interviews." should read something more like


 * Wikilink Audrey Hepburn, caterpillar, butterfly.


 * Image: please provide a short caption relating the image to the text, along the lines of "Carey suggests that Audrey Hepburn's slight figure may be the product of epigenetic changes from wartime deprivation."


 * "which is also known as" - how about replacing those 5 words with "or". Again, please go through the section and copy-edit.


 * "it is reviewed as providing" - better say "a reviewer, Nathan Lents, called it".


 * "the controversy and politics surrounding this relatively new field" -> "the controversy around this field".


 * "are less than complementary about" is somewhat too chatty. Perhaps "have criticised".

Peer-reviewed publications

 * Um, sorry, but I'm not keen on listing these here at all; better just to say "Carey has published over 30 peer-reviewed papers on epigenetics and other aspects of biology", and to mention a few of the most-cited papers in the text, along the lines of "Her most-cited work was her 1859 book on the origin of species; Thomas Huxley commented that this was "the most revolutionary book" he had ever read.[1]" (you get the idea). It is not our job to be a directory (WP:NOTDIR), nor are we a CV agency, and there are plenty of better places to look for up-to-date paper listings. If you really want to have some of the papers here, please pick the top few and rename the section "Selected papers".

Other publications

 * Not sure of the value of any of this, suggest we remove the section.

Video Presentations
Thanks Chiswick Chap! These are all great suggestions and I will work on the pageJulieMay54 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A gain, suggest we delete this, not sure it adds anything encyclopedic.
 * Great. I've struck the items you've completed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response we lost power yesterday hence no modem for internet. I think I have done all the requested editing (and a little more). Thanks for your input, your suggestions add clarity which was needed. This is my first GA nomination, do I need to take any further action now? JulieMay54 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Only one thing left: the lead is still too short, see above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary

 * This is a well-cited article on a notable person. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)