Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Bryant Conant/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:18, 18 January 2013.

James Bryant Conant

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Been years now since an article on a chemist has been nominated for FA, and not since Joseph Priestley in November 2007 has one succeeded. I present an article on a chemist who rose to become President of Harvard University. If promoted in time, I hope Conant can appear on the front page for his 120th birthday in March. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and I made some tweaks. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your general awesomeness with 20th-century military stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments (only a few at the moment, may have more time later). Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Going back to the article itself, I'm only halfway through, but it looks good so far. Will try and add more comments later. Have you had the chemistry bits reviewed by someone who might be able to say more on that, e.g. from the Chemistry WikiProject? Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the lead section, the date when he became an assistant professor of chemistry at Harvard is over-precise (September 1, 1919). You usually only need the year in a lead section (a good example of an exception is the Trinity nuclear test date later in the lead). The lead ends abruptly in 1957. You really need to summarise the next 21 years as well, even if only in a sentence or two.
 * Added a couple of sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the 'Early life' section, is "LPC Laboratories' an initialism formed from the initials of the surnames of the three founders members?
 * Apparently. But I cannot say so, because my sources do not say. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Skipping ahead slightly, in the external links, the 'National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoir' link is the same as used in the sources, so can be removed, unless you intend the reader to refer to this for 'further reading', in which case it should be flagged up as such (and properly formatted). Of the other external links, the 'Participants: James Bryant Conant' one is interesting, but at the moment there is no indication why a reader would want to follow that link - there needs to be something explaining what the link is to, prompting the reader to follow the link. The 'Annotated bibliography for James Conant' sounds promising, but when you click on it, it is rather confusing. Is it really showing a bibliography? And on a general point, external links don't need retrieval dates (though web page source references do).
 * Removed two. Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the infobox and the categories, you have unsourced items on: 'Foreign Members of the Royal Society', 'Fellows of the Royal Society of Chemistry', 'Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science', 'President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science' (in one of the succession boxes), 'Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany', 'Honorary Commanders of the Order of the British Empire' (the infobox omits the 'honorary' bit), and 'Commander of the Legion of Honour'. For some bizarre reason, he is also in the category 'Kentucky Colonels' (a basketball team??). His Sylvanus Thayer Award is mentioned only in one of the succession boxes. Finally, the 'Medal of Merit and Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster' is mentioned in a picture caption, and the Medal of Merit is mentioned in the infobox and categories, but nothing is said about this award in the main text of the article (e.g. what year he was awarded this, and ditto for adding dates for the other items mentioned in this bullet point). While on awards, it would be nice if the infobox could list his science awards as well as his military ones.
 * See the article on Kentucky colonel. Conant was awarded this in 1946. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just about worked that out, but you got there before me! and . I'd never heard of those honorary US state titles before. Do you have plans to source any of this (or the other stuff mentioned above) in the article text? Most of it seems to be listed by Bartlett. I tried finding the Gazetting of his honorary CBE, but failed (not sure how those honorary ones are announced or where). I did find the Foreign Member of the Royal Society bit here (that gives the year). The Clark Kerr Medal, which he was awarded, has a stubby article. We also have Benjamin Franklin Medal (American Philosophical Society), which he again was awarded. Details of his Arches of Science award are here. Are you aiming to only include some of his awards and honours, and how do you decide which to include and which to leave out? The American Education Awards are here for instance. I did find a news article on him receiving the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (it was at the end of his service as ambassador, I think). And it would be nice to know more about the Legion of Honour award and the Medal for Merit (not of Merit as in the picture caption). That was effectively recognition of his WW2 work as a civilian, right? If you think this would overwhelm the article text, can they be listed with year in bracket in chronological order in the infobox? Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was reviewed at GA. WikiProject Chemistry has no A class review, so I had this conducted by WikiProject Military History. I didn't do biochem at uni, so the article relies on my high school level understanding of the subject. I was hoping that another set of eyes might show up at FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You could always ask at a suitable WikiProject. My brief reading of the 'Chemistry professor' section (which is what you'll want to get reviewed) is that oxyhemoglobin is a redirect to hemoglobin, which has a section on oxyhemoglobin. Whether you want to handle that link another way, I don't know. You may also, for instance, want to make the link with blood chemistry and oxygen transport more explicit (it depends on whether you think most people know what hemoglobin is or not). What appears to be missing is mention of who he worked with at Harvard as a chemist, or those he may have taught who later became famous. I see Max Tishler is mentioned in the bibliography, and A. H. Blatt appears to be Albert Harold Blatt (1903-1986), who at first glance seems fairly obscure. Does Bartlett not have anything to say on people Conant worked with before he became President of Harvard? You won't have much room for that, but if there is something it would be nice. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems notable to me. Someone could write an article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 21 December 2012‎
 * Hopefully someone will at some point (Albert Harold Blatt). The other red-link (for George W. Wheland) looks interesting as well. I've been looking at the main sources on Conant that I have access to, and I do think more could be said about the research he carried out. I'll say more about that later or on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments OK, that is enough for now. Hope all the above is OK and can be addressed in some way. Apologies for the length of the review. Overall, I really enjoyed the article, and once I've dug around in the sources (that I have access to) to get a feel for what has and hasn't been covered, I'll almost certainly be supporting. I'd be happy to continue on the article talk page if more discussion is needed on any specific points. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a year for his Nichols Medal?
 * 1932. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a year for when the Nieman Fellowship was introduced? Does that paragraph generally cover changes in the 1930s and 1940s?
 * In 1936; but the first was not awarded until 1939.
 * When you mention Theodore H. White's opinion on Conant, why is his (White's) opinion relevant? Who is White? Add 'historian' at the start of that sentence?
 * Well, he is notable. If I left his name off, people would give it a who? tag. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lowell had imposed a 15 percent quota on Jewish students in 1922" - you could make it clearer here that Lowell was Conant's predecessor as President, not all readers will remember this from earlier. (in the same paragraph, no need to wikilink 'historian').
 * Changed this one myself. Hope that is OK. Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "In 1934, Ernst Hanfstaengl" -> "In 1934, Harvard-educated German businessman Ernst Hanfstaengl".
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Roscoe Pound sentence, you need to add something like "American legal scholar and Dean of Harvard Law School", otherwise the connection with Conant is not clear without following the link.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, what year was Pound's honorary degree awarded?
 * In 1934. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Similarly, you could say that Thomas Mann and Albert Einstein are examples of displaced German scholars. The bit about Roosevelt (FDR) is fascinating - should you not say that he was actually US President at the time? Not everyone will realise that (and it will help when you mention Roosevelt again later).
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, are there historians who have commented on the stance chosen by Harvard and Conant with regards to Germany and Hitler at this time?
 * Yes. There are two groups of these: education historians interested in the march to integration and acceptance of women and minorities, and political historians looking at the transition from the New Deal to the War Against Fascism and Militarism. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can this be expanded on in the article? Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph on the 1941 Harvard–Navy lacrosse game, the bit relevant to Conant is that he gave this apology (it would be nice to know if this was something he felt forced to issue, or whether it was something he personally agreed or disagreed with, but I can understand that sources may be silent on this). Have historians commented on this subsequently? You gave quotes from historians in the antisemitism paragraph. This racial integration paragraph doesn't seem to come to any conclusions. Clearly it shows what things were like then, but to round it off, do you not need something such as saying when racial integration was achieved and (bringing it back on topic) whether Conant's presidency of Harvard aided or hindered this?
 * Racial integration was underway at Harvard already, but point is the greater weight Conant accorded to good relations with other institutions over standing on principle. I should add that Conant saw this as a class issue rather than a race issue, which racial issues usually are in the U.S. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As above, is this covered adequately in the article at the moment? Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that in the infobox the details of his Presidency of Harvard includes 'President: Harry S Truman'. Why is the US President for part of his time in office at Harvard at all relevant (it is not a government position, is it)? And if the details of his Harvard Presidency are in the infobox, is it not possible to include his scientific awards and positions as well? He clearly had different strands to his life and career: military, science and science and university administration; so the infobox should be adapted to cover them all, if that is possible. Ugh, and the infobox fails to mention his WW2 work at all. People like Conant with diverse and complex careers are one reason why infoboxes just don't work! After reading the article, I really feel the infobox doesn't do the man justice.
 * Conant called these his "lives". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It does seem a bit silly that the infobox covers his WWI work but not his WW2 work. It's not the most pressing thing, but would you object to anyone trying to make the infobox a bit more balanced and representative of his 'Several Lives'? Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because the infobox covers military service, which in Conant's case was during the Great War. It covers three of his lives. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it covers his diplomat 'life', his 'educator' life, and his (WW1) 'military' life. But as I said, it still fails to say anything about his WW2 work. That still seems wrong to me. And the 'awards' bit seems to come under the 'Military service' header, but includes more than just military awards (and is a real hodge-podge at the moment). Is there a way to visually offset the awards bit, or handle this differently somehow? I'm not going to press this, but it just frustrates me slightly. The infobox on J. Robert Oppenheimer is different, but frankly not much better. This is why I really try not to get involved with infoboxes. The next thing you know, someone will pop up and suggest more than one infobox is used... Anyway, dropping this now, as I want to say a bit below about the sources I've looked at, and then step back a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know the ending of the previous paragraph did mention World War II, but the 'National Defense Research Committee' section might be improved by including the dates of the outbreak of World War II and when the USA entered the war.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Similarly, saying who Vannevar Bush is and what the National Defense Research Committee is would help as well. Not all those reading this article will be familiar with the topic.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if Conant remained a civilian, but working on military committees, that would be a point worth making. Other than that, the explanation is good here of the NDRC and OSRD and the role Conant played. Very minor point: the rubber shortage-national scandal sentence has too many commas and the construction is a bit clumsy. The section does introduce a lot of people without really saying who they are. Would be nice to say that Baruch was a businessman(?), that Hovde was a chemist and that Carroll L. Wilson was whatever he was (that's the problem with redlinks!), that Lindemann was a physicist and advisor to Churchill, and that Churchill was Britain's wartime leader and Prime Minister. I'm generally of the view that the first time you mention someone, you should really say who they are, though I accept Churchill may be too obvious. (Your second use of Lindemann mis-spells his name). Is it possible to link 'the British program' to something (surely we have an article on that)? And it would be nice to know what the honorary degree was that Churchill conferred on Conant. Bizarre, though, that that sort of thing (the awarding of honorary degrees) continued in the middle of a major world war (you may want to mention the year, 1943, of the Quebec Conference). I wonder if both sets of honorary degrees were merely part of the cover for the secret military meetings? In the last paragraph of this section, maybe make clearer that it is "growing criticism in the USA"? i.e. US public opinion, not international opinion.
 * Think I got all of that Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the 'Cold War' section, make clearer who Robert Oppenheimer is? Most of those reading this review will know, but not all readers of the article will. The bit about Conant and his views on public education is fascinating. One bit that wasn't quite clear to me was where you say his influence was declining after he was passed over for President of the National Academy of Sciences, but then at the end of that paragraph you say he was appointed to the National Science Board (do you have a year for that?) and was appointed to the Science Advisory Committee - were those not influential posts, or was his influence now being redirected to other areas?
 * Those were not influential posts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The connection with Kuhn is, again, fascinating - this really puts things in context.
 * I wound up reading Kuhn. I really enjoyed his book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the 'High Commissioner' section, should the 'USIA' acronym be expanded?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the Adenauer bit, "re-election as Chancellor of West Germany"? (or whatever it was called then)? It might help here to explain the relationship between the High Commissioner and the Chancellor - the Chancellor was democratically elected, but his (partitioned) country was occupied by the Allies so he had to negotiate with three occupying powers? That must have been complicated. Maybe in the previous paragraph, where you explain this, say what the role of Chancellor was?
 * 'Death and legacy section': "nursing home [in] Hanover, New Hampshire" (missing word).
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One final point: ending on the sealed note he wrote to the future is nice, but maybe gives too much weight to his views and something that is, at the end of the day, a bit dramatic. To round off the article, are there no historians who have given an overall view on Conant that could be quoted?
 * I thought it would be nice to let him have the last say. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Comments Support
 * No alt text for infobox pic (there is a parameter for alt= )
 * No alt text for signature image in infobox
 * That's a surprise. I didn't think there was any alt text anywhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't find it for the signature image, but the infobox photo now has it.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to look at some more later, but overall the article is in real good shape. GregJackP  Boomer!   16:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FN31 links to an error page, not the desired pdf file
 * Repaired link rot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, support. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Images Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a shame, but the copyright tag for File:Oppenheimer Marshall Conant Bradley and others at Harvard.jpg notes that "Please note that national laboratories operate under varying licences and some are not free. Check the site policies of any national lab before crediting it with this tag." The site policy in question says "Unless otherwise           indicated... the public may            copy and use this information without charge, provided that this            Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies.            Neither the Government nor LANS makes any warranty, express            or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use          of this information." which is not the public domain. I'd check first and foremost whether they are merely reproducing the image from somewhere else.
 * No, it's definitely in their files. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source for File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG is broken. An alternative is provided although you might be able to fix that one.
 * I was hoping that DOE would put it back up again. Switched to alternate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Truman, Bush and Conant.jpg - is the file online that we can link to? (advisory only)
 * Yes. Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Dr. James B Conant 1953 Berlin .jpeg do we have a more specific template? I don't doubt this is an official photograph from a federal employee, however, so that's just advisory as well.
 * There is a more specific temp[late, so I have used it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment on sources: I've been looking over the sources used (and not used) for this article and am jotting down a few thoughts here. Overall on sources, the article is great on the military history, but I'm puzzled as to why sources like the DSB aren't being consulted. I raised this issue on the FAC for Robert Oppenheimer (also nominated by Hawkeye7), linked to the DSB articles there, but nothing ever happened with that. Is this a case of not using those sources because other sources cover the same material? If so, I do think a note somewhere on the article talk page on sources not used (and why) helps prevent people later asking the same question. One more thing I want to point out, is how difficult it is to write comprehensive and balanced articles on people like Oppenheimer and Conant who had diverse strands to their lives and careers. It is because it is so difficult to write such articles that I've been so critical. There is a really good article on this (which gives both Conant and Oppenheimer as examples), see Scientific Biography: History of Science by Another Means? (2006, Mary Jo Nye). She refers to them as having "multivalent" lives. A new biography was published recently on Oppenheimer (as noted on the article talk page), and I suspect there is more that remains to be written about Conant as well. Anyway, apologies again for writing at such length on the sources used here, but hopefully the overview will help in assessing the article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The major source used is Hershberg (1993): James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age. This is an extensive book-length source by an academic historian (James Hershberg). Earlier sources on Conant include Bartlett (1983): 'James Bryant Conant, 1893–1978: A Biographical Memoir'. This is a biographical article by US chemist Paul Doughty Bartlett for the National Academy of Sciences journal Biographical Memoirs. There is another similar article that was published in 1979 by George Kistiakowsky and Frank Westheimer: 'James Bryant Conant' in Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 25, 209–232 (1979). There is an entry for Conant in the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography: 'Conant, James Bryant', Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 2008. There are also two journal articles, one from 2003 and one from 2011: Saltzman, Martin D. (2003). "James Bryant Conant: The Making of an Iconoclastic Chemist". Bulletin for the History of Chemistry 28 (2); Biddle, Justin (December 2011). "Putting Pragmatism to Work in the Cold War: Science, Technology, and Politics in the Writings of James B. Conant". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (4): 552–561.
 * Two of these sources are not used in the article when possibly they should be: Kistiakowsky and Westheimer (1979) and the DSB entry. Have these sources been consulted, or are there reasons not to use them?
 * Possibly the Bartlett (1983) and Saltzman (2003) sources should be used more than they are. They seem to have been used mainly for factual information, not for their opinions. Bartlett has a list of awards that seems to have been neglected so far. Saltzman's opinions seem to have been left out entirely. I can't remember if I read it in Saltzman or Bartlett, but there were two points I was surprised not to see in the Wikipedia article: that Conant thought his work on chlorophyll was his major contribution to science (I'm paraphrasing from memory) and the story that he said to his wife that he wanted to achieve a certain number of things in his career (which he did). On the most recent source, Biddle (2011) has been used only once. I don't have access to the Biddle article: is there not more that could be said from what Biddle had to say in that article?
 * On a technical point, the source "Conant (1970)" should appear in the references. The links in the notes currently redirect the reader to the list of works by Conant in the main body of the article, rather than to a listing of his autobiography in the references section.


 * Was it Ralph Waldo Emerson who said that "There is properly no history; only biography?" Scientists tend to be "multivalent" because they usually do their most brilliant work while young, and then drift to non-scientific work in later life. Every scientist that I have written up follows this pattern. I think I could tell Mary Jo a bit more about writing biographies. I am a techno-military historian, but write a lot of biographical articles on Wikipedia. It is not really a matter of consulting every possible source, but of assembling a comprehensive article. And I rarely seek opinions from secondary sources, since if I need a historian's opinion, I can write one myself. So I only use them for facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, having Hershberg (a book-length source) to draw on in this case makes it easier. And for the 'superstars' of science (or any area) where multiple book-length biographies exist, the amount of material to read through or at least be aware of can be overwhelming (Einstein, Newton, Galileo, and so on). You have to trust that the authors of those biographies have done some of that work for you (building on earlier work). For those that don't have book-length sources, I'd argue that you do need to at least be aware of other sources and consciously use them or reject them. Your final sentence, I'm not sure where to start with that, but it should be highlighted: "'And I rarely seek opinions from secondary sources, since if I need a historian's opinion, I can write one myself. So I only use them for facts.' - quoting from Hawkeye7's comment at 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)" I really would like to see what others think of what you have said here. I recognise that you are a trained historian (and I and many others on Wikipedia are not), and that your work is excellent, but you do quote the opinions of others (just less than I've seen other editors do), hence your 'rarely' qualifier (I would really like to ask how you and other historians decide when to draw on the opinion of secondary sources and when not, but that is a judgement call that might be difficult to unpack into words). Most editors on Wikipedia will not have that luxury and will only be able to use their best judgement when quoting others (and they may get that wrong), which means that problems may arise when you try and work on articles where others have added such opinions or others try and work on articles where you've taken this approach. Anyway, would you object to the details of the DSB article and maybe a couple other sources you haven't used being placed in the external links? That would probably address most of the lingering concerns I have. I have asked someone else if they are willing to have a look at the chemistry parts of this article, though given the timing I don't know how long that will take. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The big question is: When do we need opinions at all? And the answer is usually in a passage on criticism or appraisal. These are usually problematic to start with, and best avoided if you can. You can't just say "Spinal Tap's last album lacked substance" in Wikipedia's voice. You could say" "Critics panned Spinal Taps last album as lacking substance", but this could result in a tag. So then it becomes "Village Voice critic Tony Deff panned the album, charging that it 'lacked substance'". Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment on sources: I've had another look, and there are a couple of other sources on his science research. From the DSB entry, two "brief but solid interpretations of his chemical career" are mentioned at the end: an earlier article by Saltzman from 1972 in Journal of Chemical Education, and a 1978 article by Westheimer from the journal Organic Syntheses. The later articles by Saltzman and Westheimer may be sufficient. More important (and not yet used) are a set of sources on Conant's educational work, which can be seen in James Bryant Conant, Encyclopedia of World Biography (2004). That article gives a good summary, and also points the reader towards: Paul Franklin Douglass, Six upon the World: Toward an American Culture for an Industrial Age (1954). There are four other sources listed there, which I won't reproduce here, but something on this needs to go in the article, particularly Friedenberg (1965) which, according to that encyclopedia article "has a chapter critical of Conant". Are these the 'education historians' you mentioned above? Do you indirectly draw on them through Hershberg, or does something need to go in the article? At the moment, there is a lot on his time at Harvard, but very little (only a sentence or two) on his work in the 1960s on his writings and studies related to educational reform. There is more on this work from the 1960s here. At the moment, in the absence of some solid text in the article drawing on the secondary literature that covers this aspect of his life and career, this article is not really comprehensive enough (1b concerns). Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added some more material on Conant's life as a chemist, and on his one as an education critic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank-you very much for that, that does address most of my concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We are lucky that we have good sources on Conant, including an autobiography, a full-length biography and several detailed essays. I don't think these are the last word on the man by a long shot, but I don't think that he is a compelling subject for biographers, like Oppenheimer, but he's doing better than most scientists. The next subjects on my list - Bacher, Bethe, Bradbury - will be much tougher. (It would also be nice to write up George Wheland and William McEwan, even if their articles will be very small.) What I think is most likely with Conant is that the lives will be accorded separate treatments. The best hope is Jennet Conant. Some books on scientists seem to manage to get through without mentioning any science! Someone clicking on the links in this article though, will find a lot of fascinating chemistry.

Support - after much back and forth above and on the article, I'm now happy to support. Kudos to Hawkeye for his excellent work here, and apologies again for the extensive notes and rumination on the sources (if a delegate is reading this, please feel free to refactor or collapse the above if it is overly long). A few minor quibbles remaining, which I'll take to the talk page. Only one of those points relevant to FAC is the need to add something to the lead section to cover the 1957 to 1960s work on education reform. Carcharoth (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Source formatting Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Several footnotes use hyphens where they should use endashes
 * An automated search found only one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FN33: formatting
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't mix templated and untemplated full citations
 * Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FN59: formatting
 * Think this has been corrected
 * Use a consistent date format
 * Cannot run the bot, but think that it is okay now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Compare FNs 51 and 108.
 * Harmonized. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nikki! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Giants2008 ( Talk ) 00:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * National Defense Research Committee: "Lindemann told Conant about progress Britain was making towards making an atomic bomb." The two "progress"es in three words threw me for a bit of a loop. Perhaps one of them could be changed out?
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually meant to say that the repeated word was "making", but you seemed to figure out my intent and this is fixed. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cold War: I don't think "Federal" needs to be capitalized in "He called for increased Federal spending on education".
 * Decapped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * High Commissioner: Minor, but I see a hyphen in "re-arming" and "re-arm" but none in "rearmament", and the two should probably be made consistent.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Later life: Is "created" the best word choice possible for "Other awards that Conant received during his long career included being created a Commander of Legion d'Honneur by France in 1936...". Then again, I don't know if this is the official terminology or not.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Immediately after this is "and the received...", leading to a redundancy of "received" uses in this sentence. That should be looked at as well.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeated word in "He was also awarded over over 50 honorary degrees."
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger Angell's first and last names are reversed in reference 52.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether TIME should have the all caps in ref 114; usually I've seen it presented as Time.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As a general note, I saw several instances where a number of sentences in an area began with "He". This is most prominent in the lead, with six of eight sentences beginning with that word at one point. It would be nice to see a few of these worked on before promotion occurs.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review!! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support 1a – Since I don't have great knowledge of what is considered comprehensive for chemistry articles in general, I don't want to go so far as saying I know this is comprehensive. However, I think the writing is up to the mark, now that my little nit-picks have been taken care of. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: posted at my talk page asking that I have a look at the chemistry in the article as I am a qualified chemist. With limited time available, I am commenting only on that single area and so feel unqualified to express an overall support / oppose conclusion.
 * In the lede: ... he was one of the first to explore the sometimes complex relationship between the chemical equilibrium and the reaction rate of chemical processes – delete "the" before chemical equilibrium.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also in the lede: ... published three papers on using polymerized isoprene to create synthetic rubber – I am uncomfortable with the word "create" as it has unfortunate connotations. I suggest something like "published three papers on the manufacture of synthetic rubber from polymerized isoprene."
 * How about "produce"? I don't want "manufacture" as some users may think he devised an industrial process. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Produce" is certainly better than "create", IMO. I was really after "synthesise" but that's out, for obvious reasons... how about "prepare" or "preparation" in the wording I suggested?  EdChem (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Chemistry professor: In 1925, he visited Germany, then the heart of chemical research, for eight months. – I am uncomfortable with "heart," it implies that Germany was the most important centre for chemical research in the world, not just an important centre. If "heart" is an opinion from a reference then cite it; if it is a widely-held opinion from the history of chemistry (which it may be, I am not sure), then cite that; if it is the author's opinion, perhaps something like "... then an important centre for chemical research" might be better?  Other editors may disagree here, I am just commenting on how it strikes me.
 * Added another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, you know vastly more about military history than I do, and given the connections to poisonous gas warfare, I'll defer to your greater knowledge. EdChem (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the list of scientists that Conant met in Germany, I am surprised that Fritz Haber is not mentioned. Maybe they never met, I don't know, but as a Nobel Laureate German chemist who worked on poisonous gases for warfare (as had Conant), it seems odd to me if they never met and if Conant had no views on Haber.  I understand that you can't add anything not mentioned in sources, but I would be very surprised if Conant was not aware of Haber and his work.  Is there anything useful that can be added in this area?
 * They never met, but Conant built on Haber's electrochemnical work. Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, and see above response. EdChem (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Chemistry professor: He explored chemical kinetics, particularly the relationship between the chemical equilibrium and the reaction rate of chemical processes. Conant was one of the first to realize that while this relationship was sometimes straightforward and simple, at other times it could be quite complex. – at least remove the "the" preceding chemical equilibrium, but would this not sound better combined as something like "Based on his exploration of reaction rates in chemical equilibria, Conant was one of the first to recognise that the kinetics of these systems is sometimes straightforward and simple, yet quite complex in other cases." Wikilink kinetics to chemical kinetics and chemical equilibria to chemical equilibrium and the links in the original are preserved.  Kinetics can appear straightforward and easily modelled at one temperature yet have the model seriously break down at others.  This can happen when an important factor for a comprehensive model (making the system quite complex) is neglected but this factor is unimportant at some temperatures.  I used "other cases" to allow the simple/complex divide to be different systems or differing factors (like temperature) within a single system.  I don't like "other times" as evidence should be reproducible at different times, it should be some other difference that leads to the differences in complexity.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant replace rather than add - see this diff of my change and see what you think. EdChem (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Chemistry professor: He looked at the reaction rates of alkyl chloride when iodides displaced chlorides – I don't know for sure what this means, but I suspect it is meant to be something like "He looked at the reaction rates for the substitution of alkyl chlorides with iodide" or "He looked at the reaction rates for the displacement of chloride by iodide in alkyl chlorides" or "He looked at the kinetics of substitution reactions of alkyl chlorides with iodide."
 * I should have removed this comment, it is made redundant by the next one. I made it before recognising it was referring to the Finkelstein reaction.  EdChem (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Chemistry professor: He looked at the reaction rates of alkyl chloride when iodides displaced chlorides, and later, with George Kistiakowsky, at the reaction rates of the hydrogenation of organic compounds. This work led others to develop the theory of hyperconjugation. – this has three problems: (1) the first part is unclear, (2) it understates / misses the significance (so I have provided a bunch of references to consider), and (3) the latter part would be better separated and (4) I don't see where Kistiakowsky and Conant collaborated formally (no joint publications in the literature, for instance.  I suggest: "Conant studied the effect of haloalkane structure on the rate of substitution with inorganic iodides    which, combined earlier work, led to what is now known as either the Conant-Finkelstein reaction or more commonly simply the Finkelstein reaction.     A recent application of this reaction involved the preparation of an iodinated polyvinyl chloride from regular PVC.  Collaborative work with George Kistiakowsky on the kinetics of hydrogenation of organic compounds supported the later development of the theory of hyperconjugation.
 * I have no problems with it. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This diff shows the change to the iodide part, see what you think. Unfortunately, it looks like some of my comments when I redrafted my thoughts here got lost, so I am going to resurrect those changes for your consideration.  EdChem (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, I have found that this edit of mine was undone by Hawkeye's subsequent edit, no doubt some sort of accident, so I'll just make those changes in the next point.  EdChem (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Chemistry professor: With regard to ... and later, with George Kistiakowsky, at the reaction rates of the hydrogenation of organic compounds. This work led others to develop the theory of hyperconjugation. –  I don't see where Kistiakowsky and Conant collaborated formally (no joint publications in the literature, for instance) so "with" seems misleading.  Also, as the earlier part of the sentence is now expanded, I suggest something like "A combination of Conant's work on the kinetics of hydrogenation and George Kistiakowsky's work on the enthalpy changes of these reactions       supported the later development of the theory of hyperconjugation."  I know there will be arguments about citing the primary literature, but I like to include the original work as references so they can be located easily by a reader should they seek it - I know I find that helpful at times - but I am just providing literature and references that might be used, not suggesting all are necessary or even desirable under the FAC.
 * This has been added too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the 16:04, 5 January 2013 version of the article, in the Chemistry professor section, there is now a sentence with seven citations (number 21 to 27). That seems excessive. I don't think EdChem is providing all those references for inclusion, just to give some idea of the primary literature. And yes, including too much primary literature is a problem. I'd suggest being guided by those who wrote overviews of Conant's chemistry research, and not giving excessive detail in this article and pointing the reader to further reading on the topic rather than trying to do too much here. The Dictionary of Scientific Biography entry that I pointed to elsewhere in this FAC (but here is the link again) is one such overview, among others. If those papers must be used as sources, please make clear what they are being used for and what exactly they are supporting in the sentence they are attached to (many of them don't even name Conant in the authors - only footnote 17 in the version I linked has papers where Conant is one of the authors). Failing that, putting some of this in a footnote would work as well. On a more positive note, the bit about the Conant-Finkelstein reaction is fascinating. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can package them so there is only one footnote reference in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing I think is important is that there is some really chemistry in an article about a chemist. I didn't want an article on Conant that was all about an administrator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but the approach taken here is the wrong one. Please read the DSB entry and consider what can be incorporated in our own words here. Or even quote a small part if you are unsure about how to phrase things. The author of that entry has highlighted which of Conant's papers are important. If any primary literature is referred to, it should be those papers. I was going to put that DSB entry as an external link, but it makes little sense to do this if the article charges off in another direction entirely. And the word 'recent' that was added in the bit referring to a modern application of this research will date (the paper in question was published in 2006). Say it was 2006, rather than 'recent'. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would group some or all of those papers into a single reference, as I did with the three Conant papers that supported the Finkelstein reaction. Secondly, those papers support "George Kistiakowsky's work on the enthalpy changes of these reactions".  The original formulation of the sentence implied (to me) that C and K worked together, but that is not supported by the primary literature, so I thought the overall reference to "leading to hyperconjugation" at the end was fine for C's work but a primary citation for K's work and indicating it was a combination of both sets of research was appropriate.  Views on when to include primary literature vary and I like to include it to support the actual work done but use the secondary to support significance, etc.  For example, if I am talking about a named reaction or an important chemical I like to include both the original literature on the work and the secondary material that establishes significance or provides a broad review of the area, applications, etc.  So, I do favour including primary literture in the chemistry conten.  Note, however, that I usually place it to support specific factual assertions rather than overall sentences / summaries.  Third, and obviously, my suggestions and edits are open to others' views and modifications, I'm offering my perspective as a chemist which other FAC contributors and delegates, etc, should (and will, I'm confident) be treated as comments for consideration.  Fourth, Carcharoth, I'm glad you like the Finkelstein reaction bit, I was surprised it was missing when I made the connection but I guess it's a connection a chemist is most likely to recognise.  It's odd if the publications on Conant's life and work don't expand on it, though, but he contributed to so many areas that covering everything is a major challenge.  It is a credit to Hawkeye7 that this is already GA and A-class.  Fifth, I still need to come back to add more, there is more than needs changing - this has already taken more time than I anticipated, but I believe it is work worth doing.  EdChem (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've bundled the six papers into a single reference. The readers may need academic library access to view the papers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved the refs to the place in the sentence I meant, and made the refs consistent. Hawkeye, looks like there is some inconsistency in capitalisation of titles across different references (compared to the iodide refs, for instance).  EdChem (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Took a quick look at the changes (summarised above and below) since I last commented, and I no longer have any major objections (my support above still stands). Still a bit unsure about the chunk of references to Kistiakowsky's original papers, and not referring to the article on Conant in the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. That latter bit puzzles me. I do have some further notes, but will put those on the talk page at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Still going EdChem (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything further, Ed? I'm about ready to call a halt and promote but am happy to give you a little more time if necessary...  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, my apologies that I didn't get back to this sooner... working now. EdChem (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Chemistry Professor: Conant investigated the properties of certain acids which were many times stronger than mineral acid solutions in water. Conant christened them "superacids".(ref|Hall|Conant|1927|p=3047) He produced them by dissolving chemicals in acetic acid instead of water, and discovered that under these circumstances sodium acetate would behave as a base. In a series of later studies with George Wheland and William Kirk McEwen, he looked at the properties of very weak acids, including acetophenone, phenylacetylene, fluorene and diphenylmethane. This work led to a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of acids and bases. (ref|Kistiakowsky|Westheimer|1979|p=212) – problems: (1) sodium acetate is a base in water, though a weak one, according to Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory, which was published in 1923... I think the point is meant to be about it not being basic under Arrhenius definitions; (2) the hydrocarbon cases mentioned rely totally on B-L theory, so I think the support for a newish theory is the critical point here; (3) the last sentence is the topic sentence and belongs up front, IMO; (4) I am concerned about the studies with Wheland and Kirk - I find only one paper with Conant and Wheland and no paper with Conant and McEwen. (Adding at 07:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC): I have sorted it out - McEwen extended the work after Conant went on to the Presidency of Harvard - and adjusted the text below.)  I propose changing it to:
 * Conant's investigations helped in the development of a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of acids and bases.(ref|Kistiakowsky|Westheimer|1979|p=212) In 1927, he reported on acids whose strength is many times that of mineral acid solutions in water, coining the term "superacids" to describe them(ref|Hall|Conant|1927|p=3047) Note that the full title of this paper is "A study of superacid solutions. I. The use of the chloranil electrode in glacial acetic acid and the strength of certain weak bases" and it is actually the part II paper that is really supporting the next sentence... and laying the foundation for the development of the Hammett acidity function.  These investigations used acetic acid as the solvent and demonstrated that sodium acetate behaves as a base under these conditions.    This observation is consistent with Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory (published in 1923)  but cannot be explained under older Arrhenius theory apporaches. Later work with George Wheland  and extended by William Kirk McEwen  looked at the properties of hydrocarbons as very weak acids, including acetophenone, phenylacetylene, fluorene and diphenylmethane. Conant can be considered alongside Brønsted, Lowry, Lewis, and Hammett as a developer of modern understanding of acids and bases.(ref|Kistiakowsky|Westheimer|1979|p=212-213)
 * But I would also like to hear on the Wheland and Kirk point, because I don't see where these studies are published - unless they are in a journal not listed in Web of Science that far back. Fixed. EdChem (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Chemistry Professor: It also led him to study chlorophyll, and attempt to determine its structure. In the end, this eluded him, and he was unable to solve the puzzle before he retired from chemistry research in 1933.((ref|Kistiakowsky|Westheimer|1979|p=214)) However, his work on chlorophyll led to his being inducted as a foreign Fellow of the Royal Society in May 1941. – need to change start given other changes and note that he helped on the way to the structure. I suggest a new paragraph:
 * Between 1929 and his retirement from chemical research in 1933,((sfn|Kistiakowsky|Westheimer|1979|p=214)) Conant published papers in Science, Nature,  and the Journal of the American Chemical Society (note in ref that there were a series of 14 papers begining with  and ending with  - I think listing them all would be overkill) about chlorophyll and its structure.  Though the complete structure eluded him, his work did support and contribute to Nobel laureate Fisher's ultimate determination of the structure in 1939.   Conant's work on chlorophyll was recognised when he was inducted as a foreign Fellow of the Royal Society in May 1941.
 * In Chemistry Professor: Another line of research involved the biochemistry of oxyhemoglobin. Conant ran a series of experiments with electrochemical oxidation and reduction, following in the footsteps of the famous German chemist Fritz Haber.((ref|Conant|1970|p=60)) He determined that methemoglobin contains ferric (Fe3+) iron rather than the ferrous (Fe2+) of normal hemoglobin, and therefore that,  unlike oxyhemoglobin, methemoglobin cannot bind oxygen.((ref|Bartlett|1983|pp=94–97))  He also published three papers describing experiments in which he polymerized isoprene to create synthetic rubber.{{ref|Bartlett|1983|pp=94–97))   I am uncomfortable with the "therefore" as oxyhemoglobin also contains ferric iron, though that was not understood until recently.  Also, oxyhemoglobin cannot bind oxygen because oxygen is already bound.  And, methemoglobin increases binding in related centres but these do not release their bound oxygen, hence producing hypoxia.  I also would use oxidation states rather than charges for the metal centres, as the iron-porphyrin binding is primarily covalent rather than ionic.  I suggest:
 * Another line of research involved the biochemistry of the hemoglobin-oxyhemoglobin system.((ref|Bartlett|1983|pp=94–97)) Conant ran a series of experiments with electrochemical oxidation and reduction, following in the footsteps of the famous German chemist and Nobel laureate Fritz Haber.((ref|Conant|1970|p=60)) He determined that the iron centre in methemoglobin is a ferric (Fe{{sup|III}}) centre, unlike the ferrous (Fe{{sup|II}}) centre found in normal hemoglobin,{{cite journal|title=An Electrochemical Study Of Hemoglobin|author = Conant, J. B.|year = 1923|journal = Journal of Biological Chemistry|volume = 57|issue = 2|pages = 401–414}} {{cite journal|title=Methemoglobin|author1 = Conant, J. B.|author2 = Fieser, L. F.|year = 1925|journal = Journal of Biological Chemistry|volume = 62|issue = 3|pages = 595–622}} and this difference in oxidation state is the cause of methemoglobinemia, a medical condition which causes tissue hypoxia. {{cite journal|title = Methemoglobinemia And Methemoglobin-Producing Compounds|author = Bodansky, O.|journal = Pharmacological Reviews|year = 1951|volume = 3|issue = 2|pages = 144–191}} Conant also published three papers describing the polymerisation of isoprene to prepare synthetic rubber.{{ref|Bartlett|1983|pp=94–97))
 * Ok, I think that is all there is for me to say on chemistry. I hope this has been helpful.  EdChem (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thankyou! It has been great. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.