Talk:Lucien Brouha/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 09:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Schwede66. We just met over another issue and I thought you were a person with whom I can talk, who is able to take criticism, and from whom I can learn. I therefore propose to review your GA nomination “Lucien Brouha”. Admittedly, I am only an apprentice-reviewer, whereas you are a widely respected experienced wikipedian and administrator. I must also warn you that my English is 2nd language and that I am no subject-matter expert. I will propose corrections and suggest optional improvements. The corrections rely on the GA criteria (WP:GACR). Some are tentative. Please tell me when you disagree with a correction. I am probably wrong. You can ignore my suggestions. They have no effect on the article's promotion. Should I lack in respect, do not hesitate to complain (see WP:CIVIL). I will start with the preliminaries and then go through the article's sections, sometimes returning to previous sections when needed. With best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous – thanks for picking this up. I look forward to working with you. Don’t be daunted by my high edit count; there are things where I am a newbie. Reviewing GAs is one of those areas; I’ve only completed my first ever review just the other day. What had stopped me previously is that English isn’t my first language. I posted about that "deficiency" and a couple of editors offered to team up and review prose and grammar for me. One is a Wikifriend and she writes the most beautiful bios. I’ll ask her to give this one a read and report on any language niggles that she may be able to spot. If you wish, we can complete this GA review first. Alternatively, I could ask her now if that’s ok with you. Your choice; please let me know.

This was a hard bio to write, Many of the references are scientific papers that sit behind paywalls. If you want to have a look at them, please let me know; I’m sure I’ve saved them (I asked someone else for those as I don’t have access myself). For other parts, I asked French-speaking Wikipedians to see whether there are sources and what it is that those say. Schwede 66 15:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Schwede66, your wikifriend is of course welcome here. There does not seem to be anything drastically wrong with your English. I will probably make a lot of "Optional" remarks. I am often unsure about them. Please do not take them too bad.

Before the article content

Optional. You seem to be inconsistent in the casing of the template names, e.g. {{short description}} but {{Use dmy dates}}. I would recommend to always use template names with a leading upper-case letter, as this is the real name of the template; hence {{Short description}}. I know it does not matter, but the code would look better in my opinion.
Optional. Please add the English variety. I suggest {{Use British English}}. – This is part of GACR Rule 1b, (MOS:LEADELEMENTS) but marked as optional: "The lead section may contain optional elements ...".

Done. Schwede 66 00:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

General remark: This article has two infoboxes. I have never seen this done before. This seems highly unusual, but I do not seem to find a rule anywhere that forbids it. I wonder what made you go for this. I also wonder what your wikifriend has to say about this. I feel that it would be better to merge these infoboxes using the parameters:

|module = {{Infobox scientist
|embed = yes

The precise manner how to do this best will probably take quite a lot of trial and error. This article is an example Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer).

Optional. Merge the two infoboxes.

Optional. I do not understand why the infobox gives the "name" as well as the "birthname". The article does not mention a change of name. I would feel it is sufficient to give all his first names in the leading sentence, as you already do, and I would omit the birthname parameter in the infobox. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using two separate infoboxes is something that gets employed when someone is notable for two distinctly separate topics. It's not super-common but it's also not very unusual. My preference is that we leave it as it is as the arrangements highlights the two major parts of his life. The name parameter in an infobox is to match the article title, and birth_name gets used when that is different to the article title. Schwede 66 00:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline MOS:LAYOUT prescribes that "infoboxes" should be placed after English variety and date style and before "language maintenance templates", images, "navigation header templates", and the lead section. Compliance with MOS:LAYOUT is prescribed in GA Criterion 1b (see WP:GACR). The article's 2nd infobox is placed after the lead. It does not comply. To pass GA, this infobox should be moved, merged into the first one, or deleted. However, please give examples of articles with several infoboxes, particularly in reviewed articles so that we can look at case histories. Are you aware of any guidelines, recommendations, or discussions of more than one infobox in an article? Have you asked your friend? Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS is king. If it’s not documented that it’s allowed (and I can’t see it being written anywhere), I’ll merge those infoboxes. Schwede 66 17:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. To merge them would probably be the best solution.

I've done so. Schwede 66 01:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before the article content – revisited

Optional. English variety. Please move the {{Use British English}} under the {{Use dmy dates}} so that these two maintenance templates appear in the order given in MOS:LEADELEMENTS. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Hello, both; thanks Schwede66 for thinking of me to assist with this. Johannes Schade, please feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions or make further suggestions about the prose (also, feel free to move my comments to another section below if you would prefer not to have them cluttering up your review; I wasn't sure of the best way to include them on this talk page!). I think overall it's a really great article and well-written, I just had a few minor tweaks/comments.

Schwede66, could you please send me a copy of reference [2], Vangrunderbeek, Hans; Delheye, Pascal (1 June 2013)? There are a couple of minor points I would like to review (noted below).

Will do. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thank you! Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the suggested changes I've made in the article (which are hopefully self-explanatory, but please let me know if not!), I had the following other comments/questions (all relatively minor):

You'll see I've suggested splitting the lead into two paragraphs; this is because it seemed quite a long paragraph to deal with such a varied career, and I thought having the second paragraph focus on his Harvard research might be helpful for the reader.
In the lead, the final sentence "where he helped shape the field of occupational ergonomics", I wondered about expanding this a bit more to explain what his work involved. I also wondered about wikilinking 'ergonomics'. (Unrelated to Brouha, I see that this link actually redirects to 'Human factors and ergonomics' which seems bizarre. Shouldn't it just be 'ergonomics'? I've never heard the term "human factors"...)
In the early life section, the sentence "When he returned in 1918", is this when he was released from prison? If so, "When he was released in 1918" might be clearer.

Yes, released from prison. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, amended. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Rowing section, with the first sentence, "Brouha's physical fitness recovered after having been a prisoner of war", do we have any timing information about this? As a reader, I wondered how quickly the recovery happened and when he took up these sports.

Sorry, but the sources weren't more specific than that. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good, not a major point. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Scientific career, where it says "He remained at the university and joined the Institute Léon Fredericq", I had a similar timing question; can we say when he joined the Institute?

I'll have a look. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been 1924 based on ref 2. I've amended accordingly. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"By the end of the 1930s, there were 48 different pregnancy tests, with one of the two most common tests known as the Friedman-Brouha test carried out using rabbits (named after Maurice Friedman ), which was also known as the rabbit test." I found this sentence hard to follow. Who developed the 48 different pregnancy tests? Was it Brouha, or a number of different scientists including Brouha? Who was Friedman? Why does the rabbit test article not refer to Brouha at all and only to Friedman and someone else called Lapman? I feel like I am missing something here...

There were 48 different pregnancy tests in total. Maurice Friedman was a fellow scientist; I'll have a look whether we can say more about him. Yes, the rabbit test article – I did a huge amount of work cleaning up related articles but this one seemed too hard. The two different tests both known as the rabbit test is confusing; the other test was the better known one. That's why Brouha's test of that name is ignored there. I'll see what I can do there; I remember being confused about it myself. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a bit tricky; I understand what you mean. It doesn't matter so much about the rabbit test article, of course, as long as this article works! I've made some minor suggested tweaks in this diff, see what you think. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into the question "who was Friedman?" and have written a short bio for him – as you do. Friedman's rabbit test was developed in 1931 while he was teaching at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Brouha developed his own pregnancy test using rabbits in the same year alongside other Belgian academics; this preceded his first trip to the US by three years. It would seem that two research teams developed the same test independent from one another, although I see that their papers referenced each other (which would seem logical). My guess is that Friedman became more prominent because with the USA, he had a much larger market than the French-language research team in Belgium. I further guess that the test the rabbit test was, at some point, be called Friedman-Brouha test to acknowledge that two researchers came up with the same thing. Apart from the initial facts (two teams in two countries), there's a degree of speculation in this. I don't think that there's scope to add much to this article, but some of that background should probably added to the rabbit test article when somebody finds the time and energy to look into this in more depth. Schwede 66 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaha. I love that you have answered the question "who was Friedman" by writing a bio for him. Thanks for spending so much time and effort responding to my curiosity, it's much appreciated, and I agree this doesn't need to be covered in the Brouha article any further! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, if you read up about someone, you might as well document what you find. Took just over an hour. Well worth the effort, I reckon. Schwede 66 04:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"so that HIPE at Liège could flourish" wasn't sure about this phrasing; maybe "so that HIPE could learn from these institutes"?

Yes, fair enough. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Brouha received scholarships from the Commission for Relief in Belgium Educational Foundation (CRBEF);" I wondered if this could be more specific about when/how many scholarships etc.

Sorry, but the source wasn't more specific than that. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, again not a big deal. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check that this diff is OK? I thought the bit about co-authoring was about the close connection created by Brouha and Cannon, rather than about the dog experiments; if I'm wrong, then this may need to be clarified.

I'll have a look. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an improvement. Schwede 66 20:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'North America', "But he soon answered Cannon's call to come to Harvard" This feels a little informal because of the "But" at the start of the sentence, and also "answered Cannon's call" isn't clear what that means (did Cannon get in touch with him and ask him to come to Harvard?). This is one of the reasons I'd like to check reference 2, to see if there's a better way of phrasing this.

If I remember this right, Cannon had been asking for some time. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right; source indicates both Henderson and Cannon asked on several occasions. I've suggested amends, see this diff. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 7-point list of requirements - does this need to be a numbered list or could it be a bullet point list? The language in the list is also a little unclear; I'm happy to have a go at re-drafting once I've seen reference 2.

That'll be much appreciated. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Attempted per this diff and with reference to MOS:LIST. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading the article and had never previously heard of rabbit pregnancy tests; whoa. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've learned a lot as well and strayed well outside my area of expertise. But it was a fun project and I quite liked the outcome. Pretty sure I tracked down a living descendent but the person (a physician) isn't getting in touch; somewhat annoying. Wanted to check whether I got all the family connections right. Thanks so much for your thorough review; it's much appreciated. Schwede 66 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, maybe they'll be in touch at some stage. And you're welcome, very happy to help! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox – revisited

General remark: The infobox has too much detail. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says "to summarize key facts", also "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". I feel that quite a few of the fields you filled in, should be omitted and all those you gave but left blank. Some inexperienced editors take empty fields in the infobox as invitations to fill them in. The documentation for the infobox "person" says "Only the most pertinent information should be included. Please remove unused parameters, and refrain from inserting dubious trivia in an attempt to fill all parameters".

Optional. "birth_name". I still believe that the birth name parameter is not needed here and should be used only if the name has changed. You give the full list of first names at the beginning of the lead as should be. That is sufficient. The birth name is not a key feature here.

Disagree. I think that your understanding of what the birth_name parameter is for is wrong. This isn't about a name change; this is about the birth name being different from the common name. Maybe it's an American thing where it's very common for people to be known by their full name. Either way, the full name is Lucien Antoine Maurice Brouha and the subject isn't known by that, but there may still be scientific literature that either uses the full name or at least abbreviations of those middle names. Therefore, it's useful to include birth_name. MOS:INFOBOX isn't too helpful. The documentation for Template:Infobox person does not appear to give the restriction you seek but states what I already had to say about the subject. Lastly, I've looked at the four FA-class medical bios that we have:

Golding Bird doesn't have an infobox (or a middle name, so we wouldn't have learned anything from that example)
Ray Farquharson uses the name parameter in violation what Template:Infobox person requires (oh dear; I note the FA was passed in 2012)
Eli Lilly doesn't have a middle name
Ryan White uses the birth_name parameter the way I understand it should be used. Schwede 66 09:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not contest "what the field is for", but I think it is not a key factor for this biography. In other words, it is simply that I prefer infoboxes to be shorter and you like them a bit longer. This seems to affect quite a few of the fields you use. Besides, I congratulate you on the addition of the photo. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. "resting_place". I feel this is not a key fact. Robermont is probably the ordinary choice for people who die in Liège. I think I have used this field only for people buried in Westminster Abbey.

I note that the two FA-class medical bios that have an infobox and note the burial place in the prose section also show that detail in the infobox (and no, neither of them is buried anywhere special, let along Westminster Abbey). Schwede 66 09:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. "siglum". A siglum normally is a scribal abbreviation. Infobox scientist says "Siglum or monogram, a text shortcut (often formed from the initials of the name, with variations) used to sign work, if relevant." I do not think there is one for Lucien Brouha. There is nothing in the article text about this that could be summarized in the infobox. Please omit.

Removed. Schwede 66 09:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. "fields". Wikipedia has an article for Exercise Physiology. Please link to it. The other field, which you call "Occupational ergonomics" does perhaps not need the qualifier "occupational". Is not ergonomics always occupational? I would link to Ergonomics.

Done

Optional. "patrons". Wikipedia has an article on the Commission for Relief in Belgium but not for "Commission for Relief in Belgium Educationa Foundation". However, it has an article on Belgian American Educational Foundation. Are you sure of the name "Commission for Relief in Belgium Educationa Foundation"? Please check.

It took me some time to understand that CRBEF is the EF of the CRB. CRBEF is not known on the Internet. Vangrunderbeek seems to be the only one to use it.Johannes Schade (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Vangrunderbeek appears to have got that wrong. I've changed it to Belgian American Educational Foundation (BAEF). Schwede 66 18:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. "alma_mater". Perhaps not a key fact.

Disagree. That's a key fact for a science bio. Schwede 66 18:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. "known_for". This pregnancy test seems to be better known as Rabbit test. Therefore do not replace this name with the less known name "Friedman-Brouha test"—or give both names?

I've changed it to Rabbit test and have put it onto my to do list to amend that article. Schwede 66 18:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. "relatives". I feel these are not key facts.

Besides, Jean Rey was not his son-in-law.Johannes Schade (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. You will always find those relatives listed in infoboxes who have an article. Although the Brouha family regarded Jean Rey as family, I agree that the link is tenuous and I've removed him from the infobox; the relationship is explained in the prose. Schwede 66 18:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. "sport". Please link Rowing

Done

Optional. "club". Not a key fact unless this club is very well-known in the rowing world.

Removed

Optional. Medals. Please link double sculls. Please link coxed four

Done

Please remember to remove the fields left blank. Thanks for having called in User:Chocmilk03. She did excellent work. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Lead

Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... exercise physiologist ... – Please link to Exercise physiology.
Optional. 1st paragraph. 3rd sentence. ... repechage ... – Wikipedia has an article on this. I had never heard of this. Please link.
Optional. 2nd paragraph, last sentence. ... (HST) .. – GACR 1a "concise"; Is the acronym HST really useful here? I would probably drop it as it is not used in the lead. However, keep it if people tend to call this HST rather than Harvard Step Test.
Optional. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Army.. – Why should Army take a leading uppercase A?Johannes Schade (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional. 2nd paragraph, last sentence. ... finished .. – I think "ended" is better in this case. See e.g. the discussion on the Cambridge Dictionary site.
Optional. 2nd paragraph, last sentence. ... a large industrial employer in Canada .. – GACR 1a "concise"; perhaps better "the private sector"?
Optional. 2nd paragraph, last sentence. ... occupational ergonomics ... – Please consider dropping the adjective. Link to Ergonomics.

All dealt with. Yes, repechage is an uncommon word and ought to be linked. I agree with all your suggestions and have adopted them. Schwede 66 18:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Optional. Only paragraph, 1st sentence. ... in 1899 ... – The main text should normally be more precise and not less precise than the corresponding summaries in the lead and the infobox. MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE states that "information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" but allows some exceptions among which the birth date, but curiously not the death date. MOS:BIRTHDATE states that the full date (dmy) should appear in the lead unless it is given in the main text. Personnally I prefer to give years only in the lead and full dates in the main text. You do it the other way round. Many biographies givefull dates in all three locations. What do you feel is best? Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Date of birth is such a key fact that in my view it should always given in the lead with the precision that is known. The reason that it's treated differently in the prose section from date of death is that with a short lead, you potentially provide the same info twice in short succession. When the lead gets longer, that's arguably less of an issue. In our case, I think the lead is long enough that the full details could be given in this section and I've amended it accordingly. Schwede 66 18:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. Only paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... couriered dispatches for the Belgian Army ... – The Belgian Army was far away on the Yser. I think Vandergrunderbeek has this not entirely right. It seems more likely that Lucien worked for La Dame Blanche, the major Belgian underground intelligence network, which was very busy in Liège. La Dame Blanche passed its intelligence to the British Secret Service in Rotterdam.
Optional. Only paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... imprisoned for his activities ... – Rather these.

I've covered the last two points by rewriting this. I don't doubt that you are right re the Belgian Army being far away, but short of having a source, I've reworded this so that the army doesn't get a mention any longer. Fact is that the Germans caught him for stuff they weren't happy with. Hope that does the trick. Schwede 66 02:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rowing

Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... prisoner of war ... – He was not precisely a prisoner of war, even if Vangrunderbeek calls him so, as he was not a soldier. Since no source give more details about his detention it perhaps best not to give it a name and just to say "after his release".

Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Société Royale ... – I do not see why the Union nautique de Liège (UNL) should be prefixed "Société royale". That might be a special honour it received but it is not relevant here.

Optional. 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... Liège ... – Unlink.

Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... Amsterdam, the Netherlands, ... – I think Amsterdam is well known enough and it is not necessary to add that it is in the Netherlands.

Optional. 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... Barcelona, Spain, ... – I think Barcelona is well known enough and it is not necessary to add that it is in Spain.

Optional. 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. ... repechage ... – Link. The other link was in the lead.

Optional. 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. ... Zurich, Switzerland, ... – I think Zurich is well known enough and it is not necessary to add that it is in Switzerland.

All suggested changes have been adopted. Schwede 66 02:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium

Optional. 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. ... his father had been a professor ... – His father would be appointed professor only in 1925. See his father's biographie in Demoulin. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a bio for his father (as you do) and amended the text here accordingly. I've also discovered that his sister Adèle was also an endocrinologist, and she is credited in a 1934 journal article with having built on the work done by Selmar Aschheim and Bernhard Zondek. Vangrunderbeek has credited the improvements of their work to Lucien Brouha. I wonder whether this is yet another case where a female scientist's achievements have been glossed over. Anyway, have a look how I've dealt with it and let me know whether you think that's adequate. Schwede 66 04:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your amendment is fine, but I wonder about the citation. You refer to Grégoire in Demoulin. The relevant fact is found on the top of page 90 and reads "il fut nommé titulaire de la chaire universitaire en 1925", but all you give the reader is the range pp 589–595. Do you believe it is reasonable to ask reviewers or readers to browse through six pages in foreign language to find out whether the citation supports the reported fact? The case of your many citations of Vangrunderbeek is worse: 11 pages to browse through to verify a citation and you cite Vangrunderbeek 14 times. I feel you need a citation style that allows to cite the individual page or pair of pages where the relevant statement can be found, not just the general location of the article in the journal or chapter in the book. I recommend to use Sfn.

Besides I agree that the author should be L. Gréoire and not Robert Demoulin. I was wrong on that. I would propose to treat the biography as a chapter in the volume II of the book, such as:

{{Cite book |last=Grégoire |first=L. |editor-last=Demoulin |editor-first=Robert |editor-link=Robert Demoulin |date=1967 |title=Liber memorialis L'Université de Liège de 1936 à 1966: Notices historiques et biographiques |trans-title=A Memorial Book The University of Liège from 1936 to 1966: Historical and biographical notices |volume=II |chapter=Maurice Brouha (1875–1848) |publisher=Liège, rectorat de l'Université |location=Liège |lang=fr |pages=589–595 |oclc=557808743 |url=https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/188261}} – Downloadable from given URL

1st paragraph, 4th sentence. Citation ... his sister Adèle ... – I do not find Adèle mentioned in Liber Memorialis, Vol II, pp 589–595. Again, this is too tiresome I would like to have a single page to browse through or a pair.

Done Now that you give a page I have found where Adèle is mentioned as researcher in endocrinology. So this is done.Johannes Schade (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph, 5th sentence. Citation In 1931 he worked ... – Citation VanGrunderbeek: 11 pages to read to verify the facts stated in this sentence. Besides the access restriction is stated in Cite Book using the parameter |url-access=registration or |url-access=subscription.

1st paragraph, 7th sentence. ... in which order the improvements were made ... – It is not clear to me which improvements are meant.

1st paragraph, last sentence. ... rabbits (named after Maurice Friedman) ... – were the rabboits named after Maurice Friedman? You will have to find some way how to introduce Maurice Friedman earlier.

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. ... lecturer-in-charge ... – A chargé de cours is simply a "lecturer" (see https://www.deepl.com/translator#fr/en/charg%C3%A9-de-cours) Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I shall use Sfn and go back through the various sources. Schwede 66 00:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that took a while. Have been on holiday for a few days. I've clarified or corrected those issues outlined by you, and introduced shortened footnotes for all book and journal references, which now show specific page numbers. Here's a ping in case this has fallen off your watchlist in the meantime. Schwede 66 23:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Schwede, I hope you enjoyed your holiday. I also love the mountains. I had thought we had agreed upon capitalising all template names, thus Sfn not sfn etc. Thanks for your good collaboration, best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Although I don't think that matters at all, to be honest. Schwede 66 22:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the hard work on the citation style. I think that was a major step forwards. Thanks also for the cosmetics.

Infobox - revisited

Optional. Please arrange the equal sign to a single orderly column. Cosmetics, just to make it look nice and show you have taken a lot of care.

Belgium - revisited and continued

Optional. 1st paragraph. ... (AZ test) ... – As written I find it is difficult for the reader to understand why it is called AZ test. Consider moving the parenthesis forward to after "their test", or find some other better solution.
1st paragraph. last sentence. final citation. The URL does seem to work. It says "This site can't be reached". But this URL seems to work: http://dictionnaire.academie-medecine.fr/search/results?titre=Brouha-Hinglais-Simonnet%20(r%C3%A9action%20de)

Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content rearranged and URL tweaked (which seems to have cured that problem). Schwede 66 19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optional. 2nd paragraph. ... Kaiser Wilhelm Society ... – What bothers me here is that a society seems to be transformed into an Institute. In reality the Kaiser Wilhelm Society became the Max-Planck Society and the name of the institute also changed. Would you not agree?

Optional. 3rd paragraph. His initial stay ... – More simply "His first stay ...".

Optional. 3rd paragraph. In 1935, he had four months ... –> "In 1935, he stayed four months"

I've dealt with all of that. Please see whether I've addressed the "Society" question to your satisfaction. Schwede 66 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Schwede this looks fine. Rereading the section Belgium, I wondered about "appointed as". I would have preferred just "appointed" and I seem not to be the only one. Please see https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/62720/appointed-as-or-just-appointed. I wanted to look up what the source (Vangrunderbeek) says about Kaise Wilhelm Society and came across your use of "f" for "and the following page". I find this "f" is not commonly used in Wikipedia. Even if the MOS does not seem to say anything about it, the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) discourages its use. Please see https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Documentation/faq0361.html. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North America

Optional. 1st paragraph. ... arrived in Boston ... – This surprises Boston has not beem mentioned before. Was the HFL in Boston? If so, mention this earlier.

Optional. 2nd paragraph. These requirements were that the test must: – Sounds clumsy. Perhaps "According to them the test must:"

Optional. 4th paragraph. Brouha Symposium – Who organised this symposium?

Optional. last paragraph. University of Montreal – Was there not also something with the Laval University at Quebec City?

Greeting, Johannes Schade (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved the Boston question. Yes, HFL was in Boston and I've mentioned that earlier; have also updated the Harvard Fatigue Laboratory article. "These requirements were that the test must" sounds better in my view than the alternative that you have suggested, and I couldn't think of a more elegant way of saying this. I will have to have a look who organises the Brouha Symposium; in fact it seems that's no longer a happening thing. I'll also look into the Laval University issue. Schwede 66 09:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted a person who is listed as a contact for the 2017 Brouha Symposium. We will see whether she responds. But her response in itself won't be useable here as it would not constitute a reliable secondary source. It might help us find such a source, though. I've added something on Laval University. I've written more about the Haskell Laboratory but sources don't state what happened to Brouha when they reduced funding for fundamental research that he was undertaking. That should resolve all open issues for now. Schwede 66 19:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Schwede. In history articles there are often events that remain mysteries and in GAs not everything will need to be thoroughly covered. So if we will not know whether the Brouha Symposium is still going on or what the details of his late carer were, is fine even for a GA (in my opinion). More detail would probably be expected in a FA. — What worries me still about Lucien Brouha is the organisation in (1) Rowing (2) Career and (3) Family and death. I think a biography should be chronological throughout if possible. I know a lot of older biographies separate the career from the family live (e.g. DNB) but newer ones seldom do (e.g. ODNB, DIB (Dictionary of Irish Biography). I feel especially that the marriage should be fitted into the chronological flow unless the lack of dates does not allow it. What do you think about this? I think we are near the end. Thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, we don't have a date for their marriage. His wife was quite a bit younger (born 1916). I can ask my Belgian rowing mate if he could be so kind to have a look at contemporary newspapers; maybe we can find it. If and when we have it, we can think about reorganising the structure. But with what we know at the moment, I suggest the structure as it stands is appropriate. Schwede 66 04:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I've found a primary source; Ancestry.com was kind enough to offer his Declaration of Intention form (which is a step in the process of naturalisation). That gives some details for his wife, too: DOB, place of birth, their date and place of marriage. They got married in Corbion and of course, there are two places in Wallonia of that name (some 70 km apart). Ah well, that'll help with finding a newspaper notice, I suppose. And I believe that this is the certificate that confirms that he became a US citizen with effect of 14 December 1942. Schwede 66 05:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! I thought the date of marriage was in one of the documentws, bur I have searched and not found it. Besides, I found that the article by Vangrunderbeek that oine can read in TWL is provided by EBSCO, not JSTORE. The abstract can be read at: https://essentials.ebsco.com/search/eds/details?db=edb&an=104208724. I could not get to the article itself from the EBSCO site. Vangrunderbeek calls him a Belgian-American. Best regards and thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to read the article? It's hosted by quite a number of sites, but always behind a paywall. If you send me an email, I can send it to you. Schwede 66 20:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks, I can read it at TWL. I just had not understood it is not under JSTORE. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent my request to Belgium. Schwede 66 20:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Family and death

Optional. 1st paragraph. Brouha's younger brother was Paul Brouha ... – I would have written "Brouha's younger brother Paul (1010—1943) was a resistance ..." I wonder whether the 1st paragraph (about his brother Paul) should not be moved to somewhere nearer in chronology. Perhaps to where you mention the German invasion of Belgium. Think about it.
The heading "Family and death" associates a very strange pair. I would separate cut this section into two. Death, I find, can stand on its own, even if it makes a very short section. I would expect a section called Death at or near the end of a biography, unless the person is still alive.
I find it astonishing that he died "after a long and painful illness" in October 1968 in Liège but still received the Gilbreth medal at the 1968 annual SAM conference in Washington "Dr. Lucien A. Brouha of E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company" (or perhaps in absentia?)

Oh, I did the section below. I'll still have to deal with this. Schwede 66 23:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's close this one out. I've copy-edited the text about his brother Paul. With regards to where that text should go, my final decision has been influenced by the fact that I couldn't find a secondary source about Lucien Brouha's wedding. Therefore, this can only stay in this family section and it thus make less sense to work his brother into the chronology of the article. As suggested, I've split this into two separate sections. Schwede 66 09:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

You cite Latham (1988) pp=15–16, twice for the SAM's 1968 annual conference, once for Brouha speaking there and once for receiving the Gilbreth Award. I read pages 15 and 16 but found nothing about him speaking there, only the awarding of the medal on page 16 (or do I miss something here?). Him speaking there seem also unlikely in the light of him dying "after a long and painful illness" in October 1968 in Liège.

You are correct; it does not say that he was speaking at that conference. I've edited the text. Schwede 66 21:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You quote "after a long and painful illness" and give two quotes at the end of the sentence. However this does not make it clear in which one the quotation is found. I would move that one to the end of the quotation.
Hounshell & Smith. The last2=Smith, Jr breaks the link. If you want the Jr, you must move it to the first2= parameter.
We have already talked about the style of citing 2 consecutive pages as 178f. I still think that many readers will not understand. You seem to have used this first in 2015 in Barrhill, then also in Barrhill and 1872 New Zeeland eight.
Re the Mazer Hoffman 1932 article: the Cite journal should use the |url-access parameter instead of adding a separate template
FindaGrave is certainly very useful but Wikipedia lists it as :"Generally unreliable" in WP:RSPSS.
Grégoir (1967) I still believe you the way you cite it makes the reader believe the book was written by Grégoire. I think you should use the "chapter" parameter to provide the heading of the chapter and perhaps the chapter-url parameter for the URL. Omit the isbn parameter. The book is too old for ISBN. Replace the ISBN with an OCLC to be looked up at WorldCat. Therefore: {{Cite book |last=Grégoire |first=L. |editor-last=Demoulin |editor-first=Robert |editor-link=Robert Demoulin |date=1967 |title=Liber memorialis L'Université de Liège de 1936 à 1966: Notices historiques et biographiques |trans-title=A Memorial Book The University of Liège from 1936 to 1966: Historical and biographical notices |volume=II |chapter=Maurice Brouha (1875–1848) |publisher=Liège, rectorat de l'Université |location=Liège |lang=fr |pages=589–595 |oclc=557808743 |url=https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/188261}} – Downloadable from given URL
Should not newspapers be cited with Sfn?

I am very impressed with your hard work. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the remaining isssues; well, mostly. Using the |url-access parameter doesn't work the way the citation templates are currently set up. It expects a |url parameter but that's not useful when you use ISSN, DOI, PMID, or S2CID, as those create weblinks already. And most of the time, it's not useful to include newspapers in shortened footnotes. The exception might be when it's all recent coverage with authors (at least mostly) known and page numbers given. We neither have authors nor page numbers in this case. Schwede 66 23:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Schade: Both of you are putting so much work into this article and it's really impressive to see! As an observer, and I hope you don't mind my input, I am wondering if you are now at the point where the article can be passed as a GA? It seemingly meets the criteria for a GA, and any further edits or suggestions are very useful but can be explored outside the review. My understanding is an article does not have to be perfect before it can be passed. Best wishes, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Schwede, thanks for your fixes. Congratulations! I will promote this now. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps. I've left you a note of thank you on your talk page.

With regards to the wedding, I have heard back from my Belgian rowing friend that the Shalers lived in Corbion near Bouillon but nothing could be found about the wedding. I've left requests for help at WikiProject Belgium (English) and WikiProject Belgium (Frech). Schwede 66 04:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just reporting back on the wedding. My requests for help from those two Wikiprojects have not been responded to. I should record the source for Corbion just in case a secondary source for the wedding does turn up one day. I don't even get snippet view for that book but I've had this before with Google Books that people in the US or Europe have access to things that aren't available in New Zealand. Schwede 66 09:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]