A fact from Nancy Marcus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 March 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida State University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Florida State University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Florida State UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Florida State UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Florida State UniversityFlorida State University articles
This article was copy edited by Tdslk, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 3 August 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article was created or improved during the following events hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2018.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Hi there. Happy to review your first GA. The article looks ripe for promotion. I'll be going through each of the sections and posting here if I find any concerns / have any questions. I will check some of the sources too for integrity. Stay tuned. MX (✉ • ✎) 20:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus passed away on February 12, 2018 after two years of treatment for uveal melanoma. – per WP:EUPHEMISM, "passed away" is generally not used. "Died" is fine.
Succeeded by Mark Riley – per WP:INFOBOXCITE, details in the infobox should be cited elsewhere in the article. Can you add that she was succeeded by Riley somewhere in the body paragraphs?
Her senior year, Marcus – I would say "In her senior year, Marcus ..."
Genotypic and Phenotypic Variation in the Sea Urchin ARBACIA PUNCTULATA (GRAY). – I saw from her CV online that it was not capitalized: "Genotypic and phenotypic variation in the sea urchin Arbacia punctulata (Gray)". Can you please double check and amend if necessary? I personally would remove the all caps. It attracts too much attention when glancing through the article.
Mary E. Clutter of NSF – When you first mention National Science Foundation, please add a (NSF) after it so we know this is what follows.
invitation of Zheng Zhong of Xiamen University. – Was he a professor / scientist? If so, I would phrase "scientist Zheng Zhong", like you did with Grice.
Marcus began working at Florida State University as an associate professor – add (FSU) after mention and use this moving forward.
of the Association including first – change to ASLO and add (ASLO) after Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography in the previous sentences.
from a three-year National Science Foundation grant. – already linked before, so remove per WP:OVERLINK; keep NSF.
held at the Florida State University Alumni Center Grand Ballroom – FSU Alumni Center Grand Ballroom, if you want. Not sure about this one since it is not a standalone mention of FSU.
highest faculty award at Florida State University – FSU
Florida State University established the Nancy Marcus Professorship in 2003 – FSU
In 2014, the main auditorium of the Florida State University Honors, Scholars, and Fellows House – FSU Honors, Scholars, and Fellows House, but I'm unsure about this one too.
arcus, Nancy H (1976). Genotypic and Phenotypic Variation in the Sea Urchin ARBACIA PUNCTULATA (GRAY) (Thesis). New Haven, CT. – Remove SHOUTING in refs per MOS:ALLCAPS
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY, INC". ASLO Bulletin. 4 (3): 3–3. 1995. doi:10.1002/lob.1995433. ISSN 1536-352X. – same here
"ASLO ELECTIONS". ASLO Bulletin. 7 (2): 3–3. 1998. doi:10.1002/lob.1998723. ISSN 1536-352X. – same here, but not necessary for acronyms of course
Pounsberry, Carl (February 13, 2018). "In Memoriam: Nancy Marcus, a distinguished FSU Oceanographer and a shining example of a colleague and mentor who stood for the very best". Florida State University Department of Earth Ocean and Atmospheric Science. Retrieved March 9, 2018. – Seems to be a dead link since it says content is not available. I found the archived ref here that you should add.
Kathleen, Haughney (April 5, 2017). "Acclaimed climate scientist named 2017–2018 Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor". Florida State University News. Retrieved September 27, 2018. – The ref takes me to a different article. You may want to add the original one here.
Hi, I've just bumped into this article and noticed it was up for GAN. It seems to me that it is a good summary of her career, but it seems to say very little about her research and how it has been received by other scientists; if the article were to meet criteria 3a, one would expect to see both a summary of her academic output and a summary of the critical engagement with it, as well as mention of her work's wider significance. As it stands, I would actually fail if that weren't added. Wouldn't you agree MX? —Noswall59 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I have always rather admired your approach Noswall59; however in this case, your biting attempt to derail a GA nomination, which was clearly identified as a first submission by Thsmi002 may cause me to reevaluate your collegial spirit. Far better to have taken a bit of time and helped improve the article, or coach Thsmi002 in improving it, than simply drive by and make the above comment to fail the nomination. MX I have added information on her research career that evaluates her reception among her peers. SusunW (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW. I'm very sorry if I offended anyone with my comment, especially Thsmi002; I will start by saying that I wasn't aware that this was the nominator's first nom, but I believe I was fair and justified in my comments. In fact, I stated quite clearly that it is "a good summary of her career". But I was correct in saying that nothing about her research was summarised in the article, which is clearly a substantial omission when evaluating an academic against the GA criteria (3a). My issue was not with the nominator, but with the decision of the reviewer MX, to whom I addressed my comments; and in doing so, I believe I clearly outlined my problem and suggested a way forward (i.e. to add more about the subject's research). My issue was that this had already been placed on hold pending mostly minor copyedits; had I said nothing, this would have passed without summarising any of her academic output; this is clearly inappropriate for an academic, regardless of the quality of the rest of the article (which is otherwise very high in this case). I care a lot about maintaining consistent standards across GAs and I will quite happily say so when I see something about to pass which doesn't quite make the mark. This is why I asked MX (again, not the nominator) to think again about their decision to place this on hold without making comments about its comprehensiveness.
As to your comment about me not fixing the issue, as my recent edit history will attest I have been extremely busy offline and have not been on here much for the last week or so (until yesterday), which is why I left a short comment here. Additionally, marine biology is not my area; I am not bringing this to GAN; nor am I the one formally reviewing it. As such, the onus (in this particular circumstance) is not on me more than anyone else to make corrections, and in truth it is usually held to be on the nominator; we are all volunteers here, and certainly my decision not to do correct this omission has no bearing on the validity of my comment. On a final note, I'm am upset that you think my criticism about this article (which in no way aimed to have this GAN failed, merely reconsidered before going back on hold) makes me uncollegial or constitutes biting behaviour; I've only ever tried to "get along" with people here, which, as you point out, seems to have come through in any interactions we've had to date. I have long respected your work, and continue to work both to encourage other editors, maintain high standards and improve the project as a whole. In that spirit, I would like to thank you for your contribution to this article, which fully satisfies my initial concern; I hope that this hasn't marred your image of me nor prevent future collaborative efforts; and I wish everyone involved in this all the best for the future. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: Hi there. I'm sure that's what Thsmi002 intended to do when he/she added Marcus' work at the "Selected works" section. I'm not sure what Thsmi002's background is, but if he/she does not have a marine biology backbone, it would have been very difficult to be able to expand on this part of the GA criteria since it requires a profound understanding of the topic and how research works in this specific field. It's very easy to get off topic in these biographies and I think Thsmi002 did well in keeping it readable and adding the sources at the bottom for inquisitive readers. I was going to ask Thsmi002 to try and expand it a bit more if he/she could, but SusunW has now taken care of it (thank you!). What do you think of the article now, Noswall59? MX (✉ • ✎) 19:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MX That's great, I've replied to SusunW's comments more fully above; I'm satisfied that the article meets 3a now. It's definitely something to keep an eye out in future – an academic's research is obviously a key component of their work alongside their institutional career trajectory. Cheers and all the best, —20:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Noswall59 I think more than anything else, I was truly surprised by your comment, as, as I said, I have always admired your work. Perhaps I took the tone as a bit more reproachful than you intended. Perhaps you missed that Thsmi002 identified it as their first submission ever, which was acknowledged by MX's first comment in the review, which is what raised my hackles. Thanks so much for your detailed explanation above and please do not be upset. I can assure you that there will be no fall-out from this minor incident in our future interactions, as your intent, stated above was to allow for improvement. I am glad I was able to add information to satisfy the import of her work and appreciate you coming back to review the information. SusunW (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, everyone. I will definitely take this as a learning lesson for my next GARs. Article is ready for promotion. MX (✉ • ✎) 04:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done: the comments above. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
