Talk:David Tab Rasmussen/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Animalparty (talk · contribs) 03:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate it. I'm looking forward to your critique. – Maky ^« talk » 06:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very close to GA. The main areas for improvement regard creating a tone that reads slightly less like an obituary/tribute and more like an impartial encyclopedia article. Many of the sources, and the most frequently cited, are obituaries written by colleagues/affiliated sources (I'm assuming the anonymous obituaries were composed by family or friends). Thus, while they may be reliable sources, they are likely non-neutral (a subtle bias in sources). This doesn't mean the sources can't or shouldn't be used, but a bit of caution is needed to extract factual information without unduly carrying over the tone. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on the tone of the article today. I admit that my writing tends to take on the tone of my sources, so I'll work on that. – Maky ^« talk » 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a good deal of WP:OVERCITE throughout, which interrupts the flow of paragraphs and impairs reading. Most of the obituaries have the same essential information, and not all need to be cited every time. If possible, references should be at the end of paragraphs rather than within them, and multiple citations, if needed, could be bundled.
I'll look into bundling, but it goes against everything I've done at FAC in the past. But let me see what I can do. – Maky ^« talk » 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the sources to rearrange them properly. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; this is more a recommendation, but is not a GA criterion. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the type of vehicle (Volkswagen bus) is relevant to the biography. I understand it paints a certain picture of Americana, but seems like undue detail for an encyclopedia article.
True. – Maky ^« talk » 20:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"His passion for the natural world and his respect for native cultures..." this seems a bit too glowing and non-neutral ("passion" and "respect" being somewhat subjective, undefined terms). A more neutral way might be to simply state something like "His interests in the natural world developed as he explored the Sonoran Desert as a youth..."
Toned down language. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He was considered a polymath due to his diverse academic interests..." should be clarified that this is one colleague's opinion, not necessarily a widely established fact. I also think the phrase "was a polymath" in the lead is somewhat a peacock term (was is a bolder statement than was considered) and should be omitted: if someone called him a genius in passing, it would similarly seem out of place to state "He was a genius..." in the lead.
Toned down language. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the authors of the two block quotes need some identification for context. Glenn C. Conroy and Fiona Marshall are largely unknown to the reader (although Conroy is mentioned briefly as a colleague). e.g. "-Fiona Marshall, anthropology professor, Washington University" or "-Fiona Marshall, Washington University".
Added context. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the introductory paragraph of "Publications" could be incorporated into "Career". The Selected publications subheading could be its own heading.
Merged sections. Removed Selected publications list as too much clutter for a general reader, and not comprehensive enough for a specialist. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further on Publications, MOS:LAYOUT recommends Lists of Works or publications appear after the body, before other appendices.
No longer relevant, since I removed Selected publications section entirely. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems he often dropped his first name and was referred to as Tab Rasmussen or D. Tab Rasmussen. If so, this should be clarified/specified, lest he become known throughout Wikipedia and beyond by a name not widely used "e.g. David Rasmussen".
Done Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentences in Personal life section seems awkwardly short to merit their own section. Not essential, but could this perhaps be expanded, or relocated to a different section?
I failed to find enough additional relevant material to expand this section. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will try to address them within the next week. – Maky ^« talk » 05:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but at this point I don't have the time or energy to finish the GAN process with this article. I greatly appreciate the review, and I hope someday soon someone can make the necessary changes and resubmit. For now I will have to withdraw this nomination. – Maky ^« talk » 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for leaving this unresolved. As I'm still somewhat a novice to GA reviews, I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this before closing it upright. I think it is very close, but the tone seems a bit too non-neutral to me, but I would like a second review. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can try taking over for Maky. Let me see what the remaining issues are and if I can resolve them to your satisfaction. As I understand it, your main issues are with the tone being too effusive and non-encyclopedic. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over the weekend, I'll see what I can do about the WP:OVERCITE issue. I did somewhat reduce the WP:OVERLINK issue, but more needs to be done. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stigmatella aurantiaca: Thanks a lot for taking this up, your contributions have been very helpful so far, especially in achieving a more neutral, encyclopedic tone. I'll re-evaluate over the weekend. Note that the footnote style/overcite issue is not a criterion for GA, and so should be given lowest priority. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re disagreement on red linking: one redlinks to encourage article creation of a "notable" topic, but I found little in a Google search to lead me to believe that a separate article on the individual species would ever stand alone rather than being merged into a genus-level article. However, differences of opinion are an intrinsic part of what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All validly named organisms, from the lowliest paramecium to the mightiest whale are considered notable by Wikipedia standards. It is conventional (though not required) among paleontology articles to redirect binomials to a genus article when there is little that can be written about individual species. Thus Paraceratherium transouralicum is a redirect to the genus, which is a Featured Article that deftly covers all species. I went ahead and created the stub Widanelfarasia and Widanelfarasia rasmusseni as a redirect, and thus Wikipedia is now a tiny bit larger :). --Animalparty! (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you mean to do the same for Chipetaia lamporca? Again, I do not see sufficient on the web to justify a separate article on the species (whose references would comprise exclusively primary sources, necessitating an unacceptable amount of WP:SYNTHESIS on the part of the editor), but redirect to a genus-level article would work. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have never heard it stated that all validly named organisms are intrinsically notable in the sense of meriting their own Wikipedia article. WP:NOTABILITY is primarily determined by the existence of reliable secondary sources, preferably multiple. By analogy, a great deal of talk in Wikipedia astronomy discussions revolves around the deletion of stub articles on validly named but non-notable stars. Wikipedia is not intended to substitute for resources such as the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Star Catalog. Likewise, I do not believe that its mission includes a separate article on every validly named organism. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've been busy! Anyhow, I think that I've probably done enough on the overcite and overlink issues for now. Although the various obituaries largely drew from a common source, they each included distinct points, so it took a fair amount of careful reading to determine which one of a list would be the preferred source for the immediately preceding text. I'm not sure that I want to work on any grammar/copyedit issues, which anyway are pretty few. Maky has been watching both of us work. Maybe, with the tedious stuff out of the way, he can be induced to take care of any remaining minor issues? Thanks for your hard work on this article and the accompanying stubs for Widanelfarasia and Chipetaia, by the way! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maky: do you by any chance have time to come back to work a bit on this article? I've taken care of a lot of the boring/repetitive stuff and if you could be induced to take care of the few remaining minor issues, we can push this to QA. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. I've had a lot going on lately. – Maky ^« talk » 05:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me, I'd judge the article to be good enough for "good", but that call is really up to @Animalparty:

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

I agree with the concern that there's too much in this article that makes it read like an obituary. The heavy reliance on obituaries rather than reliable sources that say why he is notable is also concerning. Here are some specific things that popped out at me:

Rasmussen frequently shared his knowledge of ecology, geology, and local cultures with his fellow researchers during fossil collecting trips.
He was equally at home in the classroom, laboratory and field and had both a scientist's and an artist's appreciation for all aspects of natural history and evolution. He was a true polymath and wrote authoritatively on subjects as diverse as paleontology, primatology, ornithology and behavioral ecology.
was considered an authority on fossil mammals and birds. (not really supported in ref, which says "He also did extensive work on fossil mammals and birds, as well as early human evolution."

@Maky and Stigmatella aurantiaca: Is there interest in continuing to work on this? delldot ∇. 23:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Delldot: Thanks. You're the second opinion that we needed. Not being the nominator, I wanted mostly to work a bit in a helping-out capacity, but it looks like Maky won't be able to finish, so let me see about incorporating your suggestions, and we can bring this GAN to a close, whether it be promoted or declined. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I chopped out the glowing testimonials and toned down and rearranged some sentences. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His Google Scholar h-index is 27, which normalized for his field of study would probably make him notable on the basis of a citation analysis alone. I refuse to use h-indices within articles themselves, however. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stigmatella aurantiaca: Great work, this looks much more neutral. I'm still not comfortable with promoting it given the paucity of non-obituary references. I'm not concerned about a lack of notability, which as you say could probably be easily established. I'm just concerned this is not going to meet the well referenced criterion without a lot of work. I'm thinking I'm going to fail it for now, although I do feel bad given the amount of work you've put in. Let me know if I can help out as improvements continue on it. delldot ∇. 17:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have no problem at all with your failing it. Since I wasn't the original creator of the article nor was I the nominator, I have no emotional stake in its passing. I just saw the nomination process stalled and thought I could help to improve the article, whether or not it was promoted. Cheers! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]