Talk:Robert C. Michelson/GA1

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

1) Just an observation. The article has been edited by only 2 editors (with one edit by 3rd one), it has no discussion history, and was GA nominated by an IP. Not a good start.

2) "The lead is too short" - yes, I hear it myself in my GANs and I hate to hear it, but I can't help here - it is indeed short even by my measures and doesn't tell enough of what is written on this page.

3) The article is too short and often reads as an unconnected collection of achievements. The situation is not catastrophical, but certainly under GA level. The proposed way to fix it is to expand on key inventions; make mini-stories out of them (with pictures), even if they are described in full elsewhere; also, to add transition sentences wherever necessary to create a smooth story.

3) "Michelson was born in Washington D.C. (1951) and is a descendant of Christian Michelsen, the first Prime Minister of Norway." - a significant claim, thus a reference is anticipated.

4) "He has been a visiting technology professor in five nations: Australia, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and Turkey" - insufficient referencing to this claim too.

5) "He is the author of over 78 major reports and publications." is unclear. What is "major" here ? What kind of publications, refereed journals, etc. ?

6) "Avocation summary" should be deleted or reformulated into a smooth text, rather than itemized list, selecting only few topics (perhaps 1-5).

As it stands, or after minor fixes, the article will not pass. I am putting it on hold for a week hoping for major rewriting.NIMSoffice (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Just an observation. The article has been edited by only 2 editors (with one edit by 3rd one), it has no discussion history, and was GA nominated by an IP. Not a good start.
 * Not sure a bio for a living person can ever be a GA. I have looked through the bios of many other scientists and engineers on Wikipedia and have yet to find one that is classified as a GA (are there any?).  I have taken a shot at addressing the comments below with CE to the original and would welcome any other editors with background on the article subject to join in.


 * 2) "The lead is too short" - yes, I hear it myself in my GANs and I hate to hear it, but I can't help here - it is indeed short even by my measures and doesn't tell enough of what is written on this page.
 * I have expanded the summary, but already another editor has shorted it a bit. Maybe its the right length and detailed enough now.


 * 3) The article is too short and often reads as an unconnected collection of achievements. The situation is not catastrophical, but certainly under GA level. The proposed way to fix it is to expand on key inventions; make mini-stories out of them (with pictures), even if they are described in full elsewhere; also, to add transition sentences wherever necessary to create a smooth story.
 * All of the "lists" have been converted to narrative text (with the exception of the list of patents, which I believe is appropriate as a list)


 * 4) "Michelson was born in Washington D.C. (1951) and is a descendant of Christian Michelsen, the first Prime Minister of Norway." - a significant claim, thus a reference is anticipated.
 * WIthout getting way off topic by going into genealogical listings, a reference has been provided from literature and the section expended to discuss origins briefly. A cogent photograph has also been added to bolster the section.


 * 5) "He has been a visiting technology professor in five nations: Australia, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and Turkey" - insufficient referencing to this claim too.
 * Some references are already provided in the section regarding the von Karman Institute (Belgium), the Hava Harp Okulu (Turkey), and reference to teaching in Sweden is made in another section. Finding something published to document Australia and Norway will take more digging, but as it stands, the summary statement is of merit.  Dates have been added.  Because these are disparate events, there will be no single place where this statement can be referenced, and I fear that it would become a series of "rabbit trails" to spend too much text explaining each one.


 * 6) "He is the author of over 78 major reports and publications." is unclear. What is "major" here ? What kind of publications, refereed journals, etc. ?
 * The nature of the publications has now been identified specifically, and a number of examples (in list form) have been provided to give the reader a feeling for the diversity of topics published as well as the nature of the publication (journal/book chapter/report)


 * 7) "Avocation summary" should be deleted or reformulated into a smooth text, rather than itemized list, selecting only few topics (perhaps 1-5).
 * The number of items in this section has been reduced, and the remaining ones have been turned into narrative with topic headings. Cogent photographs have also been included to add balance with the other sections having photos.

 &#8259; Fire wall   16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly got better, but there are remaining issues, e.g. references are not right, but I'll write on this later and shall leave what I have for now:

7) Lead (of a Good Article) is a summary. With rare exceptions, it should not contain references (i.e. the lead sentences should be expanded in the text and this is where the references should be)
 * All refs removed from lead and body of article expanded in the topic areas of these references  &#8259; Fire wall   22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

8) Define or spell out RTA
 * Done  &#8259; Fire wall   22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

9) I advise removing all trivial details. Suggestions for deletion:


 * "He is now in private industry as an engineering consultant" (delete or move into the article)
 * Done  &#8259; Fire wall   22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "where he met and married Evelyn who was also employed by the FAS."
 * Removed  &#8259; Fire wall   22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the purpose of early trivia in this article as merely to show the relevant interests, as briefly as possible - not to sum up all activities. The rocket part is clearly relevant. The scouting part should go from "early life" - the "Scouting" subsection under "Avocations" is sufficient. My advice is to let go the hurdling part too.
 * Hurdle ref dropped, Scouting moved by expanding topic under "Avocations". Amateur rocketry left in place.  &#8259;  Fire wall   22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * References 12-15 should be compressed into one and placed only once (end of "early life").
 * refs rearranged  &#8259; Fire wall   22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

10) "Project director" seems most interesting part to me, and improving it would only make article better. Your ideas are welcome here. I would note that the objects shown in 2 pictures there are not self evident and are not mentioned in the text. If they are they interesting enough why not explaining them. If not, would it possible to replace them with more interesting ones?
 * Topics have been expanded in some places to more fully discuss items listed. Now the terms used more directly reference the wording found in the picture captions.  The picture captions have also be edited to related back the "Project director" section discussion in a more identifiable way.  &#8259;  Fire wall   22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NIMSoffice (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

11) "This system developed by Michelson's design team remained in use by a foreign power for nearly a decade." - any specifics on "foreign power" ? Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to pass this GAN despite past COI comments, because this article is well written, neutral, stable and surprisingly well referenced for WP:BLP. There were problems with the content and references, but they were fixed in the review process. I believe this article can give an example (perhaps not the best but modest) on how to compose biographies of living people. I am going to wait a bit for the author checking 11) and my copyedit and for possible comments by other editors. I would remind the author that he should settle the previously discussed copyright issues and keep in mind that GAs are being regularly evaluated. The standards are only getting higher and delistings of old GAs are common. Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 11 best left as is. All other CE looks fine.  OTRS has been contacted by E-MAIL with copyright info and use release from author.  OTRS notices have been placed on all new images.   &#8259;  Fire wall   01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)