Talk:Robert H. Boyle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 17:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll take on this review, and post some comments shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm game to respond. Cheers! BD2412  T 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

First reading
Looking at the main body of text first, I will come back to the lead later.
 * The infobox has his DoB as August 21, 1928. Where did that date come from?
 * Is any information available on his parents and childhood?
 * "In 1953, after receiving his education abroad," - Most of his education seems to have been in the US.
 * "the latter of which.." - I don't think you should use "latter" when there are three items.
 * The sentence starting "Some of his most notable coverage.." needs a bit of reorganisation; the three items mentioned should have similar formats.
 * Similarly, the end of the sentence starting "Hudson River Valley citizens.." wants changing because it has got a different subject than the earlier parts.
 * Who won the litigation?
 * The sentence that starts "In 1969, Boyle published.." has "describing" and then "described" used in different ways with different subjects.
 * He ended his association with Riverkeeper in 2000, but which year did it start?
 * It's strange that with his degrees in History and his military career, he ended up writing about sport, natural history and the environment!


 * Looking now at the lead, I see that it does not conform to the MOS style guidelines. It should not be necessary to have any citations in the lead because the lead is meant to summarise the main body of text, and that's where the citations should be. I see a lot of information in the lead that is not contained in the main body of text. So I suggest you move the last sentence of the first lead paragraph and the whole of the second lead paragraph into the Career section, adjusting things as necessary. When you are happy with that, you can expand the remaining bit of lead by summarising the main content. You can ping me when you are ready for me to have another look. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a run at the issues shortly. BD2412  T 19:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Atsme Talk 📧 23:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Noms checklist:
 * 1) The infobox has his DoB as August 21, 1928. Where did that date come from? ✅
 * 2) Is any information available on his parents and childhood? ✅
 * 3) "the latter of which.." - I don't think you should use "latter" when there are three items. ✅
 * 4) The sentence starting "Some of his most notable coverage.." needs a bit of reorganisation; the three items mentioned should have similar formats.✅
 * 5) Similarly, the end of the sentence starting "Hudson River Valley citizens.." wants changing because it has got a different subject than the earlier parts.✅
 * 6) Who won the litigation?✅
 * 7) The sentence that starts "In 1969, Boyle published.." has "describing" and then "described" used in different ways with different subjects.✅
 * 8) He ended his association with Riverkeeper in 2000, but which year did it start? ✅
 * 9) It's strange that with his degrees in History and his military career, he ended up writing about sport, natural history and the environment!✅ - see what you think now...
 * Just a quick follow-up, about the disconnect between his degrees/early career and his later life, is that just an observation, or is there something that needs improvement in the article relative to that? BD2412  T 23:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just an observation. The GA criteria state that an article should be broad in its coverage and include the main aspects of the topic, but a GA does not need to be "comprehensive", in the way that an FA does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I modified & rearranged for clarity in response to your list, and included when/why his focus turned to issues relative to conservation/environmental concerns rather than what his degrees represent. Atsme Talk 📧 16:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Second reading
The article is looking much better. Just a few points:
 * I think that the word "journalist" could suitably be added to the first sentence of the lead.
 * "Boyle's environmental activism came to light in December 1959" - That sounds as if it was newly-discovered, perhaps something like "Boyle's interest in the environment became apparent in December 1959"
 * "So much of the what Riverkeeper has accomplished" this is a quotation, but perhaps it is not correctly copied from the source.
 * The quotation by Philip G. Howlett has also got a bit mauled!
 * References #7 and #14 should be in lower case, and #3, #21 and #23 have the date expressed in a different way from the rest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Nom's response to second reading:
 * 1) I think that the word "journalist"....✅
 * 2) "Boyle's environmental activism came to light in December 1959" - That sounds as if it was newly-discovered...✅ - the common definition for the term "came to light" is made obvious or made known to a lot of people. The latter is what I meant and why I prepended it with his first conservation piece in SI. 😊
 * 3) "So much of the what Riverkeeper has accomplished" this is a quotation...✅ - It actually was verbatim (copy/paste), which included the rogue "the" in Gallay's closing statement. I tried adding [sic] but didn't like it, so I replaced it with a different quote.
 * 4) The quotation by Philip G. Howlett has also got a bit mauled! ✅ - You are too kind, my WikiFriend. I butchered that quote! 😳 No excuse, but it served as a reminder to not proofread one's own work after word-blindness has set in.
 * 5) References #7 and #14 should be in lower case, and #3, #21 and #23 have the date expressed....✅

, I think you can put this puppy to bed. Atsme Talk 📧 22:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
 * The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
 * The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
 * The article is neutral.
 * The article is stable.
 * The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.


 * Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)