Talk:Eleanor Glanville/GA1

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, my review comments. I see there's some open discussion about the lead, which I'll take into account when reviewing. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriate, with CC licences. Captioning and positioning are fine. It's a shame that no image of Glanville is available. Alt text could be added for Glanville fritillary.

Alt text added. I agree about the lack of portrait! It's possible there's one out there somewhere, but none that I can currently locate/access. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Check - I reviewed the single match above 0% from Earwig's Copyvio Detector. "central department for diversity and inclusion" doesn't seem like a seems a phrase that would rate as a copyvio.

General

Shouldn't Glanville Fritillary, Green Hairstreak etc. be Glanville fritillary, Green hairstreak, etc. according to MOS:COMMONNAMECAPS?

Nice catch -- corrected. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family

No issues.

Entomology work

Larvae could be wikilinked to Larva.

Done. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It would later be renamed the Glanville Fritillary in the decades after Glanville's death". This source is a blog, but it's hosted by UCL and is by a Curatorial Assistant at the Grant Museum of Zoology. It says that "it was Petiver who proposed that this species be called the Glanville Fritillary in honour of its discoverer." It's an incidental detail but optionally, if you think it's relevant and supported by reliable sources, you could consider adding this in. Same for the claim in the blog that "This specimen ... was the type specimen used by Carl Linnaeus when he described Melitaea cinxia in 1758".

I've added the Carl Linnaeus factoid (seems solid), but I'm skeptical about knowing whether Petiver proposed the Glanville fritillary name. Everything else I've read suggests no one knows precisely who proposed it. I checked 3/4 sources listed by the UCL blog, and none confirm where that information comes from, so I've left it out for now. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems suitable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

Seems fine. The length of this section compared to Entomology work seems appropriate given the relative coverage I've seen in sources.

SourcesI

All look appropriate. A search of the Wikipedia Library and online did not identify any significant omissions from the list of sources.
Spotchecks (ODNB and Eleanor Glanville Centre) were all good.

Infobox and Lead

See below.

@Alanna the Brave: Thanks for your work on the article. I really didn't have much to comment on: it reads well and, from what I've seen in sources, gives a balanced and rounded overview that is well cited. I'm inclined to agree with you, as per the talk page discussion, that the lead does comply with MOS. I might remove the tag, but I'll probably wait a little longer in case the talk page discussion develops further. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thank you for the review! I've responded to your items above -- let me know if you spot anything else that needs addressing. It sounds fair to wait a few days to resolve the lead length discussion; I still feel the same way about it, and while I might be able to trim a few words here and there, I'm just not sure it would make sense to remove whole paragraphs of info to match the suggested 1-2 para length. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read the article again today, I'm still satisfied that the lead satisfies "The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic" per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Apart from that section, the MOS:LEAD lead says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" and per MOS:LEADBIO has "the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole." These need to be balanced against the "suggestions about lead length [that] may be useful" from MOS:LEADLENGTH. Everthing looks fine but I'll give it another day to give an opportunity for further comment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: Looking at the update on the "Lead length" section on the talk page, I'm now happy to pass the article for GA. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.