Talk:Stafford L. Warren/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article's nomination for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Rochester University. Could we get a little more information about his invention of the mammogram? This is an important development in the history of cancer diagnosis/treatment, and it seems like it should be given a little more than a stubby paragraph in the article about its inventor.
 * Expanded a bit. Will see if I can find out a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Manhattan Project image caption, "with the Bikini Island" Should either be plural islands or remove the "the".
 * Done ✅
 * Manhattan Project, "Kirk was furious and when told that Warren was the man the district had in mind to commission as a colonel, and apparently familiar with Warren's work only from his use of radiation to treat venereal disease". First, why was he furious? Second, the article prior to this mentions nothing about radiation to treat venereal disease, so this is an abrupt introduction to the subject.
 * I did not want to dwell too much on this, but I will expand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Added text about why Kirk was so upset. Also added a bit earlier about treatment of venereal disease. Aside: Accidentally or deliberately, Nichols confuses Norman T. Kirk with James T. Kirk. :) ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Beam me up, Scotty :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Manhattan Project, "here were 62 fatalities and 3,879," 3,879 what?
 * "disabling injuries". ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Manhattan Project, "Fortunately, no problems arose." No problems arose while he slept, or no problems arose from having someone on duty who hadn't slept for two days?
 * With the test. Added words. ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Manhattan Project. Some transition would be nice between the discussion of Japan and the discussion of Operation Crossroads. As currently written, it's an abrupt jump.
 * Added a few words. ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Manhattan Project, "he was replaced by Dr Shields Warren." Any relation?
 * Not that I'm aware. ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * University of California, "the Governor of California, Earl Warren." Again, any relation?
 * Not that I'm aware. ✅Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * University of California, "Against some influential opposition," Can you give any details about this opposition? Why was Warren successful?
 * I don't know. It isn't in my sources. If I was going to take the article further, I'd have to dig out the 1,000 page oral history transcript, but its in the University of California in Los Angeles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. If you take this to FAC, this information is needed (IMO) for the article to be "comprehensive". However, I think that even without the information the "broadness" criteria at GAN is met. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * University of California, "He strove to integrate not the structures but the faculty with other departments of the university." What?
 * Not just the structures. Added missing word. ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What makes Ref #6 (Scienceheroes) a reliable ref?
 * I only used it to indicate that it was well known. Deleted. ✅
 * What makes Ref #21 (Williamlongmire.org) a reliable ref?
 * I referenced Longmire's University of California obituary therein. It was only used for a couple of words, to establish who hired him. Do you want it redacted? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm going to say that it can be left, since it does cite its sources. However, if you take the article to FAC it would probably be best to replace it, since it most likely doesn't meet the high-quality reliable source criteria at FAC.
 * Rochester University, "That year he published perhaps his most influential paper, entitled "A Roentgenologic Study of the Breast"". This is sourced to the paper itself, which is not a reliable source for it being his "most influential paper".
 * Deleted "perhaps his most influential" ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There are a few spots that I would like to see fleshed out more. These are detailed above in the prose section.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but a few questions about prose, completeness and references. I am placing the article on hold to allow time for these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that is all the changes I can make. Back to you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the first point in the prose section? It's getting late here, so will check in further on the other points in the morning. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick work on the last point. I've left a couple comments above about additional work that could be done if you are taking the article to FAC, but it looks like everything needed for GA is good to go. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)