Talk:Isaac Newton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 12:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin this review over the weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Seems fair at first reading. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No apparent edit wars. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
They all look to be free images. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

You discuss Newton's not taking holy orders three times. I'd leave it out of the earlier section and the "religious views" section, and keep it just in the "Middle years" part.

I don't see this in the Middle years section, where is the mention there?--ɱ (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph under "Mathematics". --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I see. The different wording threw me off. The middle years and religious views mentions do go into varying levels of detail, so I wouldn't suggest simply removing one or the other; a merging of the two would be best.--ɱ (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge the two. Middle years is my preference, but putting it in religious views makes sense, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this parenthetical represents: "(Opticks, 8th Query)."

We can link to the article on The Queries, you can see the text at page 314 of this Google Book: [1]--ɱ (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we should make it into an footnote. It seems odd to have a cite in the middle of the text, since that's not how any other citation is formatted. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The German poet, Goethe..." might be better as "The German poet and scientist, Goethe..."~~

Done.--ɱ (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The "Law of Queen Anne" part is confusing. Is there some particular law passed during her reign that you mean? And Anne was dead by 1717, didn't the recoinage start earlier?~~

I don't understand that either. If needed, I could try to get the book from a library, else we should just remove it. The date is already there.--ɱ (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it makes sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, do you know why it's there or what it's trying to convey?--ɱ (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Newton was the second scientist to be knighted, after Sir Francis Bacon." This needs a citation. There were many gentlemen-scientists in the Royal Society, weren't there? Some surely had knighthoods.

I don't know whether The History Channel or this book, a Capstone Publishers work, qualify as reliable sources, but I'm not sure there are any better ones. --ɱ (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're weak, but if there's no dispute, it's good enough. I was hoping that the nominator might have a better source. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the comments I have for now. Looking forward to your responses. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you put this on hold; I'll try to respond to some of these.--ɱ (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for seeing this that late... --Good afternoon (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no one responds to this in a few days, I'll have no choice but to fail it. It would be a shame, since it doesn't need much to get to GA. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you wouldn't mind, I would like your input on how to merge the "holy orders" sections in the best way, and if we should wikilink "8th Query" to The Queries. Also, do you think either of the sources I provided are sufficient in attributing the "second scientist" fact?--ɱ (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied above. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go about implementing.--ɱ (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Are there any further concerns?--ɱ (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks for stepping up on this one. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good work here--it looks good to me too. If other WP editors want to know what the first part of this discussion is about, they can do a FIND in the article on [ holy ] and see five 'hits' including the very interesting sentence about Sir Isaac Newton: "he refused to take holy orders in the Church of England..." -- FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]