Talk:Robert Cade/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * There is not enough of it. See WP:LEAD: broadly (i) anything of substance in the main text should be glanced at in the lead, and (ii) the lead should not mention anything that is not treated at greater length in the main text. Thus, the use of Gatorade in hospitals should be in the lead, as should his self-financing and the long-term benefit to the university. Contrariwise the words "Although Cade engaged in many areas of medical research…" should be reflected in the body of the article.
 * I think the lead now just about passes muster, and will not press my objections further in that regard.  Tim riley  talk    22:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Works for me, if it works for you, Tim. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Text
 * Only two complaints about the prose:
 * we really can't have "all parties decided to play nice": much too slangy for an encyclopaedia article
 * "In stark contrast" – is distinctly WP:EDITORIAL in tone.
 * ✅ I have implemented the edits suggested, but I still think the difference between $43 and $1,000,000,000 is pretty darn stark -- literally. That's a lotta quid.  LOL  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So it is, and it is as well that we now let the figures speak for themselves without editorialising.  Tim riley  talk    22:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Links
 * Not clear about your approach to blue-links. Some everyday words are unnecessarily linked (e.g. physician, inventor, urinate, perspiration, salt, symphony orchestras and violins) – see WP:OVERLINK – but two terms, presumably familiar in the US but not everywhere, are not linked: interned (which in the UK means locked up without trial) and residency (at a hospital). Links might help here.
 * ✅ Removed all redundant and low-value links per WP:OVERLINK. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:DATED
 * I'm sure you'll be keeping an eye on developments and updating the article as appropriate, but it would be safer to recast the penultimate paragraph on the lines of "The Cade Museum Foundation was established in 2004 and as of 2014 is chaired by Cade's daughter, Phoebe Cade Miles. The Foundation announced in [year] that it was raising funds to construct a new building for the Cade Museum for Innovation and Invention in Gainesville, with a groundbreaking planned for 2015." Something on those lines will remain true even if you forget to update it.
 * ✅ Completely in agreement. Implemented the easy fix you suggested above.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good article criteria
 * I am a little worried about criterion 3a. Knowing nothing about the topic I cannot say whether you have covered all the important aspects of Cade's life and career. I'd feel happier if you could assure me that he did nothing of any great significance in any field other than the invention of the drink.
 * I am reviewing all of the career summaries that were done at the time of his death, as well as several lifetime interviews, to see how I might expand the discussion of his work and other research. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, his role in the formulation of Gatorade is his claim to fame -- no Gatorade, no Wikipedia notability, just another professor doing research of which the general public and media are completely unaware.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I await the outcome of your researches, but I am not making an issue of this. As long as you are satisfied from the sources that the drink is Cade's sole claim to scientific fame I am happy to accept your assurance.  Tim riley  talk    22:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tim, the invention of Gatorade is his sole notable claim to fame. He did a lot of routine academic research that did not result in major breakthroughs; typical academic researcher in that regard.  There are references laced throughout the article regarding his other research areas, but no major details appear to have been published in the major mainstream newspapers I have reviewed -- only passing references.  I am requesting JSTOR access to review his published academic papers, which if they don't yield additional career text will at least populate a bibliography section.  If you're willing to pass the article as is, I will ping you in a few days with the results of my search for his published journal articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have JSTOR access, and had already checked. I am content to mark this question as resolved.  Tim riley  talk    23:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Over to you. I don't think we need put the review on formal hold if you can polish off these points quickly.  Tim riley  talk    13:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for jumping on this review, Tim. I think all of your comments are four-square on point, and in some cases are revealing of how my Wikipedia writing style has evolved over the last five years.  Most of this article was written three to four years ago, and I haven't made many substantive changes since.  I will tweak a number of things to reflect my present, evolved take on these style and formatting points.  I will ping you later today for an update.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The lead could still be a bit more substantial, but I think the article meets all the GA criteria.  Tim riley  talk    23:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks for your input, Tim. Pleasure working with you, and I hope we have occasion to work together again soon.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)