Wikipedia:Peer review/Pamela C. Rasmussen/archive1

Pamela C. Rasmussen

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's passed GA,and I'd like to get to FA. I'm no expert on biography so any help welcome

Thanks, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not clear that this article is comprehensive. The profile at the MSU Museum appeared to include research interests that I did not see covered here. (Patagonian seabirds, &c.) Did I miss it in the article?&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right - I didn't want to list everything she'd written, but that is a significant area. Jimfbleak (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

SGGH

I suggest:


 * Address any issues related to what RJHall
 * Need a full DoB
 * "She later specialised in Asian birds describing several new species" needs a comma after birds
 * Ideally references section needs to be "notes" with a "references" section acting as a bibliography below it, but this is more my personal advice.
 * General expansion of all areas.
 * Good references
 * A caption for the infobox image?
 * Good image captions

Overall a good article. Very good referencing, not much I can pick up on. Hope my ideas help! SGGH speak! 10:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks. I've addressed the comprehensiveness bit, although there's precious little I can find on the fossils or seabirds. I've emailed for some basic bio details, but she's in Madagascar for a month, with limited internet access. I'll look at the other suggestions later. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know about FAC, so I looked at the sources for the article.


 * Okay, this one may be a killer. Using an archive source from the Smithsonian is verging on WP:OR. It's definitely a primary source and its definitely NOT published. I strongly suggest replacing the current ref 17 "Ripley, S. D. and Ali, S. Correspondence, Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7008" with something published. Especially as its correspondence
 * Current ref 19 Hussain, S. A. ... as it's just an unpublished report may be slightly better, but published sources are the best for  satisfying WP:V. Strongly suggest replacing this reference also.
 * What makes http://www.sciencecodex.com/ a reliable source?
 * Otherwise the sources look fine. I did not look at prose, just sources as I would have done at FAC. 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll look for alt sources tomorrow, I don't think ther are all needed anyway Jimfbleak (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)