Jump to content

Talk:Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz

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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reyk (talk · contribs) 21:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. I will aim to finish the review within a few days. Reyk YO! 21:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: Thank you! I'll be around to address any concerns. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly high-quality and well-written article. There's no problems with neutrality or stability. It certainly has the potential to be a GA, without too much extra work. There are a few instances of inadequate sourcing, where the source does not support the claim being made. I'll work through the article section by section, as I have time, and make specific suggestions.

Lead

[edit]
  1. There is some minor synthesis in the second sentence. It cites two scientific papers that don't have Ijaz as an author. It's poor form to combine the fact that Ijaz discovered isotope X with some papers using that isotope in medical research, to arrive at the conclusion in that sentence. You need a source to state this explicitly. I suspect there are some more suitable ones later on in the article.
  2. I would drop the bit about collaborating with other scientists. This is a routine thing for scientists to do. Furthermore, the source does not mention Los Alamos or Fermilab. Done
  3. Last sentence of the first paragraph claims he wrote 58 papers, but the source says "more than 60". Done
  4. I think the lead should also mention Ijaz's family life, and the circumstances of his death. Done

Early life and education

[edit]
  1. The business about Shah Jahan seems irrelevant. Done
  2. The sentence about the Ijaz couple's first child needs sourcing.  Done
  3. Need a better source for "where Ijaz was admitted as a doctoral candidate in particle physics under Munir's direction". In fact, Munir's obituary does not mention Ijaz at all.  Done
  4. Again, the source for the next sentence (about the synchrotron) does not mention Ijaz.  Done
  5. The sentence about Ijaz getting guidance from Munir is sourced to two scientific papers written by Ijaz. Inferring any kind of "guidance" from that is an original interpretation.  Done
  6. The last half of the last sentence, beginning "...would set the stage..." is unnecessary padding and could be removed.  Done
@Reyk: Issues noted, I will be working through them in the next couple of days as I have time and will let you know once they're done. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeRangeFrog:- excellent. I will hopefully work through most of the rest on the weekend. Reyk YO! 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeRangeFrog:- hi, are you still working on this? Reyk YO! 19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: Aaahrg, yes. I spent a lot of time this week trying to find sources for some of the research-related stuff with little success. I'll be trimming that today. Thank you for your patience!! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright, I'm not a stickler for deadlines. I just wouldn't want it to drag on indefinitely. Reyk YO! 07:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

[edit]
  1. Sources 21-24 are not really suitable. They're another example of using scientific papers to demonstrate a point none of them actually state.  Done
  2. Source 26: needs something to confirm that Ijaz was promoted, and that the post is tenured.  Done
  3. I would omit or trim the stuff about Luke Mo, because it seems like puffery, and the Distinguished Visitors Colloquium Series bit is not sourced.  Done

Oak Ridge National Laboratories

[edit]
  1. Dead link in the first paragraph.
  2. The end of the first paragraph is a bit heavy on listing individual isotopes, and could be reduced a little. Done
  3. The discussion about osmium isotopes being used in cancer research needs better sourcing  Done
  4. The sentence about thallium isotopes in cancer research probably needs to be connected more explicitly to Ijaz; see my first comment about the lead.  Done
  5. Source 39 (the book about Erbium) seems to be from a publisher that regurgitates and sells Wikipedia content.  Done
  6. In fact, I would say the whole second paragraph is badly sourced and of questionable relevance.  Done (removed)
  7. Paragraph 3 does not appear to be about Mujaddin Ijaz at all. None of the sources mention him. I think this paragraph should be removed altogether.  Done
  8. Sourcing for Paragraph 4 is a little weak.  Done
Regarding para 4, apparently Gov. Dunn's archives are missing the list of honorary citizenships... which means they were not otherwise recorded or digitized. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 09:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atoms for Peace

[edit]
  1. I think there's too much about what Atoms for peace is, and not enough detail about Ijaz's involvement.  Done

Notable collaborations

[edit]

This section is fine as it is.

Personal life

[edit]

Also OK.

Discussion

[edit]

@Reyk: Can you spot check my fixes so far? I also removed a lot of additional synthesis that I couldn't source. Still working on the issue with the lede. Thoughts on my converting those redundant references into a "Selected publications" section? Not very sure about that. I hope you don't mind but I edited your lists to number them so we can refer to them more easily. Getting there! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to be late replying. The changes so far look pretty good. I'm happy with these modifications. Reyk YO! 08:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: Thoughts so far? Trying to find the sources for the dead link and other things you mention, just wanted to see if you feel this is still OK from a GA perspective given the amount of material removed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hullo FRF, I'm perfectly happy to continue on if you are. I'll take another close look tomorrow, but from a first glance the changes you've made look more than reasonable. It's looking a lot better. Cheers, Reyk YO! 19:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: Awesome, we're almost there. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeRangeFrog:- I've checked over the changes you've made and I'm completely satisfied with them. All that needs doing now is the Atoms for Peace bit and then the article will be good to go. Good work. Reyk YO! 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk:  Done Not much to do there from a sourcing perspective (he just participated in the program) so I left in the bit about the Pakistani side and merged into the previous section. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeRangeFrog: Passed. Congratulations, and thanks for your hard work on this. Reyk YO! 17:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: Thank you for your patience and detailed work, I appreciate it! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources modified on Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mujaddid_Ahmed_Ijaz&oldid=1221193285"