Talk:Fredrik Elfving/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 06:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this one on. Aircorn (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I actually started reviewing this on my phone and then accidentally deleted it. Anyway here we go with take two. First it is excellently written. Interesting and seems to cover his life well, without getting bogged down in details. I am unable to check many of the references due to my lack of secondary language skills, so will assume good faith with most. They all look reliable. I will leave a few comments below, they are not necessarily requirements, but a I would appreciate a response to each even if it is just to say you disagree. Some might just be from my ignorance

what does order of estates mean?

A system of social hierarchy, now glossed in the text. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

his eldest sister became an author much later. Later than what?

Removed this bit. Was trying to allude to the fact that she didn't publish her first work until her fifties, but that detail is better left for her (eventual) article. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gave up on his plan after a couple of years. The next year he had decided on botany, so not sure how the couple of years fits in

Reworded and (hopefully) clarified this. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fierce competition. This sounds a bit like they were pitted against one another in some sort of game or trial.

Removed "fierce". Details about the "competition" are in Vainio's article. but I left them out of here as this incident didn't really negatively affect Elfving's later life unlike it did with Vainio. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The apostles of civilisation paragraph is a little unclear. Don’t know how Vyborg nation fits in. Maybe more background needed and maybe a bit more layman speed for the non Finnish.

Added some explanatory background. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

similar with the language issue. I know it is wiki linked, but a short description might help as issue is vague. It also took me a few reads to realise that the second chair was for a Finnish speaker. This confused me a bit as I am not clear on why this would be necessary as wouldn’t Elfving speak Finnish as well?

Not sure if Elfving spoke Finnish ... he probably did, but perhaps not well enough to give university-level lectures in that language. Have hopefully clarified this paragraph. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

views on lichens. I think it would help to explain duality of lichens first time it is mentioned. Also from my first read through I thought Elfving was supporting the continually repeated accident theory, which confused me on why he was looking for genetic links. It might help to posit the current thinking if it can fit in as you start by saying his other research has stood the test of time, which suggests this hasn’t, yet the rebuttals all come from his time.

Is it better now? Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

developed university teaching. I think this could be made clearer. It reads a bit awkward, although I get the intention. Maybe something like developed University courses, or methods of teaching botany at university

Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there are two biographies in further reading. Is there any reason they are not used a references. I see the same author is used extensively with another work, so presumably they are reliable?

They would be reliable, but unfortunately I cannot find them on the internet. Wanted to list them to assist future readers (or editors) to find more information. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the lead is excellent. Still not sure about fierce competition.

Great work. I think these are all minor issues. Doing this on my iPad as am away from the computer, so apologies for the formatting. Aircorn (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for the review. I will work on these suggestions and get back to you. Esculenta (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more. The images. Now copyright is not my strong point, but many of them have no author so it is impossible to know when they passed. Given the ages of the photos I am not too concerned about any except File:117 HKMS000005 km002i7m.jpg and File:Fredrik and Thrya Elfving.jpg. Could you give me some more details on how this meets our copyright policies as I am unable to translate the websites you got it from. Also I would suggest adding some better licensing to your other images. For example File:Fredrik-Elfving-1870s.jpg has the 100 years after the authors life template whereas the ones you uploaded don't (eg File:Fredrik Elfving in 1879.jpg and File:Fredrik Elfving age 26.jpg).

The first two photos you mention are hosted on the Europeana site, and are clearly marked CC-BY-SA 4.0, so I think they should be ok. For the File:Fredrik-Elfving-1870s.jpg picture (which I cropped from someone else's upload), I updated the host url and switched licensing to CC-BY-SA 4.0. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The line in Further Reading. I know it is just so we don't repeat Elfving, but I do think it would look better having his name (or not having his name at all and moving the year.

Do you mean the author-mask lines in "Selected publications"? This is standard formatting that I've already used in, for example, Edvard August Vainio. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Just never come across it myself before.

Nothing much on earwig [1]

I hope these changes adequately address your helpful suggestions. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. This is an excellent article. No qualms about passing it. CongratulationsAircorn (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]