Jump to content

Talk:Isaac Adewole

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Isaac Folorunso Adewole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time


Tick box

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
Query
  • Per the guideline WP:EMBED we tend not to have mere lists, such as the Fellowship and membership section. It is generally considered that summarising and explaining information is more helpful than merely listing it. What do the fellowships mean? If they are non-notable in themselves, could they be summarised as "He is a member or fellow of X number of organisations....." I was unsure if a fellowship list is standard in articles on biologists, so I did take a look, but couldn't find anything similar. If a subject has a number of awards (including fellowships) they are generally summarised and discussed in prose, such as in Ann Bishop (biologist), Richard Dawkins, and Robert Ridgway. Additionally, the Fellowship and membership section is poorly cited, with the bulk of the list apparently unsourced. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...Thanks for pointing this out. I couldn't find anything similar too. I fixed the problems. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
That's looking better. I'll read it through later. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::::The article has acquired an even longer embedded list now in a new Work section. The advice on this is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Lists_of_works_and_timelines; also worth considering is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:SPLITLIST. There is limited value for the reader of listing every workshop the subject has been involved in, and every article he has published. It is an overwhelming list that is unwieldy and indiscriminate. Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia for the general public - the articles are intended to give an overview of the subjects they cover in order to provide the reader with a useful guide; the sources consulted, recommended further reading, and external links, provide the reader with resources to research further if deeper or more detailed information is required. If the subject's works are deemed to be sufficiently notable in themselves, the lists can be split off in WP:Summary style to become standalone lists, like Charles Dickens bibliography, or The Rolling Stones discography, or List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, etc. I'm not sure the articles Adewole has written or the conferences he has attended would in themselves be considered notable enough to justify a standalone list, though in my experience the Wikipedia community is more tolerant toward the notability of standalone lists than they are to articles. You may wish to consider a standalone list, though my personal recommendation would be to summarise the information contained in the Work section in a sourced prose statement, and provide a link to an external site for the detailed list. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kindness. I won't make such mistake again in the future. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 02:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a significant number of capitalisation errors; to be fair these can be tricky, and I get a bit confused myself sometimes. WP:MOSCAPS has guidance on when and when not to use capitals. Would you please go through the rest of the article, with reference to WP:MOSCAPS, and sort out as many of the capitalisation errors as you can. I'll pick up what you miss, but it's good to go through it yourself first, so you can start to learn what is right and what is wrong. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much SilkTork, I've really learn a lot. You must be a very good teacher. I will go through the rest of the article, with reference to WP:MOSCAPS later in the day or tomorrow evening to fix as many of the capitalization errors as I can. We have a Wikipedia event tomorrow at Goethe-Institut here in Nigeria and I'm one of the organizers of the event. Thanks for your time and patience. With kind regards. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry. The event takes precedence. Enjoy the meeting! SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*There are two images used in the article. File:Isaac Adewole.jpeg and File:Isaac Adewole2.jpg. They both need author information. If you took the photos yourself, you can either use your own name or your Wikipedia name. If someone else took the photos, you would need to supply the source where you found the images, or if they are unpublished and supplied to you by the author, you would need to ask the author to either upload the images themself, or email Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team with a statement that they are the author, and that they are granting permission for the images to be used. File:Isaac Adewole.jpeg is curious as there is text attached to the image - looking at the technical data it appears the original image has been Photoshopped during which the text was added, rather than it being a scan of a magazine. The text is not actually needed on the image itself. That information is normally supplied on the image page rather than the image itself, and then when using the image in an article, the editor can create their own caption. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Layout. The pull quote in the Keynote speeches section uses a quote box, which draws significant attention to it. It's not a major issue, but such use is generally frowned upon - see Template:Quote box. Use of quotations in articles is a contentious area. Some editors like them, some dislike them. It's fair to say that articles don't actually need them, but judicious use of significant and iconic quotes can be helpful at times. I'd say that use of this quote falls within editorial judgement, though it might perhaps be appropriate to use a less contentious and visually distracting method of presenting the quote.
Use of sub-sections is again a matter of editorial judgement. I don't think the subsections in the Career section are particularly problematic, however they are perhaps on the borderline of being too short. MOS:BODY gives the advice: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." It's a matter of choice. I think my preference would be for one section - there are only four paragraphs in the section - they don't need their own headings, and it does look cluttered, does inhibit reading flow giving that the subsections are only paragraphs, and the headings come quick upon each other, and it does give undue weight to those areas of his career, such as University College Hospital, where the reader might wonder why that hospital was so significant in his career that it is selected as a subsection title. However, using the subheadings wouldn't be a deal-breaker if all else in the article meets GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was born inside a moving car" - When selecting information for an article editors need to make judgements about what information is essential, helpful, and "encyclopedic". Some information is what is termed "colourful" (or trivial)- that is, it is not essential, does not define the subject, does not inform the reader, but it provides some information that readers might find quirky or interesting. Editors make a judgement if a piece of information is encyclopedic or colourful, and then decide to add it to the article or not. Some information is simply colourful, but may be quirky enough to be of interest to most readers - generally, such information would be found in a range of sources on the subject. If there is a piece of information that is purely colourful, and is found in only one source, and perhaps is not that interesting, and is not that appropriate for the subject matter, a good editorial judgement would be not to use that information. Personally I would not include such minor information as that a distinguished biologist was born in a moving car. Such information might be appropriate for a magazine article or a biography, but not for an encyclopedia. But it is an editorial decision. If there were too much such information then I would say the article was failing criteria 3(b) "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. It has been addressed. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Hi, Silk! I fixed the page per WP:MOSCAP. Thanks for the good work. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I will take a look today or tomorrow. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bias / Original research. As indicated below, there are a couple of examples of puffery that need to be addressed, and a closer adherence to what the source is saying. I think once those have been sorted we can pass this article and list it! SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These have now been addressed. SilkTork, I'm extremely sorry to bother you. Thanks for the good work. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 03:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fail

General comments

[edit]
  • In this edit you put back the bolding to The Guardian that had been removed in this edit, where I had used the edit summary: "we only use bold for the first use of the article name. See MOS:BOLD". You perhaps misunderstood "first use of the article name" - it means first use of the name of the article being read or edited (in this case Isaac Folorunso Adewole), not other article names mentioned or linked (such as The Guardian). It's worth reading the guidelines I link to, as they provide valuable information, and that is why I link to them. If you did read the guideline, and misunderstood it, then it's worth raising that point on the guideline talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting, to see if others also have been mislead by what is said, and if there is a way of making it clearer. It does say "highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article" using the definite article "the" rather than the indefinite "an", which makes sense to me, but perhaps this needs further clarity for others? SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SilkTork. You have not in anyway misunderstood MOS:DATETIES. I'm not aware of the Date format by country before now. I thought mm/dd/yy is the generally accepted format on Wikipedia. Thanks for fixing it. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
United Africa Company is a British company which principally traded in West Africa during the 20th century. I provided a more reliable source. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "he decided to follow the advice of his school counselor who recommended a career in medicine" is sourced to Lagos News which is a brief summary of an article in Nigerian Tribune, but is not itself the source, nor does it reprint the source. I have searched the online Nigerian Tribune for that article (my browsers warn against using it because of suspected software, but it seems fine) with no result. The closest I can find is an interview in The News (which appears to be the original interview from which the Tribune would have taken its information) in which he says "The guidance counselor, Mr. Adelekan, also gave me subjects combination for medicine which are: chemistry, biology and physics." If indeed that is the original source for the information, then we don't have evidence for "his school counselor [...] recommended a career in medicine" (my italics). Could you look into this a bit further? And if the The News is the original source, then amend the statement to more closely follow the source: "The school guidance counselor suggested subjects which were useful for a career in medicine". SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with you. Fixed! Thanks. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In recognition of his outstanding research and expertise in the area of cancer, he was appointed to serve as a member of the international advisory board of the African Cancer Institute" The first part of this sentence (my italics) is not found in the source provided. Who is saying that the appointment was due to his "outstanding research and expertise"? If the source provided is not saying this, then the article cannot say it. We need a source, or the comment removed - it's OK to say "He was appointed to serve as a member of the international advisory board of the African Cancer Institute" without the first part - and it is better like that anyway, as it is assumed that he would be appointed because of his knowledge and skills rather than because of his ignorance and incompetence! ;-) See Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:NPOV. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been addressed. The comment has been removed. It reads like this: "He was appointed to serve as a member of the international advisory board of the African Cancer Institute" without the first part.Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 03:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In recognition of his contributions to health and education in Nigeria, he was nominated as Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by Muhammadu Buhari." Again we have the "puffery" of "In recognition of his contributions to health and education in Nigeria"; also, can you find a better source for this statement, as the current source says "Strong indications emerged yesterday that Senate President Bukola Saraki will today read a letter from President Buhari on a new ministerial nominee from Oyo State. Vanguard gathered that the initial nominee from Oyo State, Barrister Adebayo Shittu may be replaced with Adewole Isaac Folorunsho." which is not clearly saying that he was nominated as Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by Muhammadu Buhari. It is tentative ("indications" "gathered" "may be"), and there is no evidence provided that Buhari nominated Adewole, only that Buhari wrote a letter about the matter - the letter may say that Mr X nominated Adewole. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In recognition of his contributions to health and education in Nigeria now removed. Better sources was provided to validate his ministerial nomination. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 03:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

Review on hold to allow copyediting to be done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork. I have done the copy edits. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are you today, SilkTork? The copy edit issue had been addressed. Could you please take a look? Sorry to bother you. Cheers. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I missed Diannaa's earlier comment. I'll take a look over the next couple of days. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is now clear and readable. There's a couple of points which I indicate above. Once those are dealt with we can list the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These have now been addressed. With kind regards. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 03:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

[edit]

This is an informative and helpful article on an important member of Nigerian society. Passed as meeting Good Article criteria. Well done! SilkTork ✔Tea time 04:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isaac Folorunso Adewole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isaac Folorunso Adewole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isaac_Adewole&oldid=1257123115"