Jump to content

Talk:Golding Bird/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Due to a persistent illness which weakens my stamina and concentration, I cannot continue this review, and have asked at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Please take over Talk:Golding Bird/GA1 for another reviewer to take over. Spinningspark, I'm sorry for the delay this will cause. --Philcha (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take over the review soon, though it'll be a few days since, as noted, it's a fairly long article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wizardman. --Philcha (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mark Green tickY comments when I think they're resolved, highlight Red XN any that are unresolved when most others are done, and strike out any of comments that I later decide are mistaken. I'll sign each of my comments, so we can see who said what - please do the same.

I'll mark the review {{inuse}} when I'm working on it, as edit conflicts are frustrating. If you think I've forgotten to remove {{inuse}}, please leave a message at my Talk page. Please free to use {{inuse}} with your own signature when you're working.

I'll read the article through first, then give comments. --Philcha (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God, what would Bird have done if he'd lived another 20 years! --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Philcha. I am quite pressed for time this week but I will try to work through most of this on Sunday, if not sooner. SpinningSpark 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]
  • No "Legacy" section, describing Bird's influence after his death? (apart from Elements of Natural Philosophy, continued by Brooke). For example, see Augustin Pyramus de Candolle. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    True there is no legacy section; is there a requirement for one? Although not in a specific section, there is extensive coverage of his legacy throughout the article. You have already mentioned Elements in this category; even more so is Urinary Deposits which was the reference work on the subject for many years. The flexible stethoscope is also covered - this of course is now the very badge of rank of a doctor. And perhaps his most important legacy is what he did for electrotherapy, which is covered in great detail, even the central theme of the article. SpinningSpark 12:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Legacy" is later authors' comments about Bird's achievements and his influence on later researchers - as I said to another reviewee, "his (another scientist's) soul goes marching on." In Bird's case I started with search string "golding bird" urology (searched only enough to see that there was something at all). A lot of the relevant sources on Google Books give no information directly but one gave the date of the last edition of Bird's book on urology (revised by Birkett after Bird's death). While many articles are either contemporaneous or behind paywalls, Medical Chemists and the Origins of Clinical Chemistry in Britain (circa 1750–1850) (2004) looks on the money. You need to be determined, resourceful and cunning - for example sometimes the full content of an article may be behind a paywall but the abstract gives enough, and in Google Books sometimes I've found the key sentence or 2 from the main page of Google Books and then just used the inner page for the bibliographical details. Then you start again with a search string "golding bird" X for some other aspect of Bird's - and also look for synonyms. Etc. --Philcha (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a good resource, thanks, pity I did not find it earlier. However, I can't quite see where this is going. A brief read through gives the impression that there is not much (or nothing) there that is not already in the article - not surprising as Coley is already one of the sources with an article specifically about Bird. SpinningSpark 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any mainly medical work rather than "Collateral sciences"? Even Elements of Natural Philosophy was, per the title, about physics and chemistry as applied to medicine. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond doubt Bird's lasting fame is through his work in the sciences. He was, of course, a working doctor and his treatment of patients is mentioned here and there through the article. His time in charge of the children's ward at Guy's led to a series of papers on children's diseases which are mentioned in the article but I did not find anything especially exciting to write about there. He became a recognised expert in urinary/kidney diseases and doubtless many of his patients at his practice were there for that reason. However, his legacy here is through his investigation of the chemistry of these diseases and the article rightly concentrates on this aspect (although doubtless, a trained chemist would make a better job of it than I have). SpinningSpark 12:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from that, I feel there's too much detail on the construction of Bird's devices, see WP:MANUAL, and some would be better in articles about "History of device X". Since you have a lot of material and citations, I suggest you save the current article in a subpage of your User page before changing the article - and "hide" the images in the subpage by [[:File ...]] or HTML comments, so that some bot doesn't remove them. Then I suggest that you start each subsection or para with the advantages and disadvantages of each device or technique for patients and practitioners. I hope that will make clear what are the most relevant of the details. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the discussion of interrupters is going a little too far. I didn't think Bird's interrupter really deserved its own standalone article and there is not already a Wikipedia article on interrupters to put it in. But there should be. I think the best solution here is to start an article, move most of the Bird material there and mark the article as incomplete (which it certainly will be). SpinningSpark 12:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

Life and career

[edit]


(more sections)

Journal articles

[edit]
  • In the list of "journal articles by Golding Bird or reporting his work", the bolding of "vol.n" is ugly and distracting - please changed to normal type. See the output of {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}}. My mistake, {{cite journal}} makes volume number bold. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of "transactions of the Medical Society of London" uses a different format - still bolding of "vol.n", but now putting quotes round the issue rather than the journal article's title. Please make this list consistent with the previous one. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The format has not changed, you are misreading the entries. The source journal is not Transactions of the Medical Society, rather, it is Medical Times and the article is their report of the transactions under the titles given. I will try to find online links to put in to make this clear. SpinningSpark 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'll check with User:Dispenser/Checklinks and the DAB checker when the content is stable.

Images

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

I review the lead last, to check that all of it is based on the main text.

2nd review

[edit]

I'll put my comments here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

  • For the first image, the thumbnail part should either be removed or a caption should be added; doesn't look good as is.
    • Done
  • Most of the sentences in the life section start with Bird; mix it up a bit.
    • First of all, that is not accurate; of the 47 sentences in the section only 13 start with "Bird". While repetition is generally undesirable, this is inevitable in a biography, especially the life section. I have removed one repetition of "Bird" but I don't think any major dent could be made in this without increasing the equally undesirable repetition of "he" or by using awkward and contrived constructions.
  • "However, that same year he became physician to the Finsbury Dispensary and held that post for five years and by 1842 had an income from his private practice of one thousand pounds per year. " splitting up this sentence may help, since with two and's, it seems like a run-on.
    • Done
  • "Adjusted for inflation this amounts to a spending power of about £76,000 now." There's an inflation template you can use in lieu of the sentence; might be easier.
    • The figure is already using {{tl:inflation}}. Which template did you have in mind?
  • "Bird followed this tradition and was particular influenced by the work of William Prout" particularly.
    • Done
  • "Bird also designed his own interrupter circuit, described in more detail below" remove self-reference.
    • Done
  • "For medical use, particular when treating a problem with nerves," particularly.
    • Done
  • "For sensory nerves the opposite applied, flow was" should be a semicolon.
    • Done
  • "Bird used his apparatus to treat Sydenham's chorea (St Vitus's Dance) and other forms of spasm, some forms of paralysis," the and should go after spasm.
    • Paralysis is not a form of spasm. I have now put the clarification following "paralysis" in brackets to try to make it clear that the list continues beyond this point.
  • "invented by one I. L. Pulvermacher" one not needed.
    • The "one" is a figure of speech indicating a person of no notability.
  • "Not only chlorides were used; beryllium, aluminium and silicon were got from the salts and oxides of these elements." 'were got from' sounds odd tone-wise; reword.
    • Changed to "...were got obtained from..."
  • "For instance when Marcet discovered" comma after instance
    • Done
  • "(Drs. Clendinning and Stroud)" are first names available for them?
    • No
  • "The Literary Gazette for instance," comma after Gazette
    • Done
  • All in all, the prose feels a bit heavy at times. This is probably due to the sheer volume of information. It's fine for GA, but if you're shooting for FA then I'd go through a peer review first to make the prose a bit less weighty.

Everything else looks good, so I'll put this on hold for two weeks. I made it longer than I usually do since it's a long article, the writer is currently away, and I'd rather not fail this and see it having to wait three months for a review again. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the nominator has remained inactive, and I'm not someone who leaves GA reviews up indefinitely. As a result I am going to have to fail this nom. Should the issues be fixed and the article re-nom'd though, I'll pass it since this shouldn't have to wait over 3 months again. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, so now that the comments have been addressed, I'll reverse my close and pass the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]