Talk:S. F. Light

Notes about sources

Resolved

So far, I've added every major source that is available on the subject. There are a few I have not added for two reasons: 1) they are shortened and edited duplicates of other, more complete sources; and two, they contain errors. One current source in the article, Visher (1947), contains at least one error in regards to the date of Light's degree at Princeton. It appears to be a typo, where the 1 in '15 was changed to a 2, making it seem like he got his MS in 1925 instead of 1915. I have therefore not relied on that source for that date.

With that said, I'm convinced there are additional, important sources in the realm of transcriptions of interviews with his former students. I have found at least one so far, an interview with Theodore Bullock, but I haven't used it because it didn't add anything new. My point is that it is safe to assume that there is a wealth of oral history material available on this subject, but it is difficult to find. I am working on making a list of his most notable students to search through any possible oral histories using those names, but in many cases, even lists of his students are difficult to find. The only list I was even able to find so far was found on the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve website, which is pretty sad, if you ask me. It shouldn't be this difficult to find information. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added the oral history sources that I could find. Additional queries are active regarding one additional student on the refdesk. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

S. F. Light examining termites

• ... that S. F. Light (pictured) "left his mark on virtually every institution of learning on the Pacific coast"? Source: Hedgpeth, Joel (1952). "Preface: About This Book and Ed Ricketts, 1952". In Ricketts, Ed (1985)[1939]. Between Pacific Tides. Stanford University Press. pp. xvii-xviii. ISBN 978-1-5036-2132-9.
  • ALT1: ... that S. F. Light (pictured) disliked using his full name? Source: Mallis, Arnold. (1971). American Entomologists. Rutgers University Press. pp. 473-474. OCLC 595601579.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Data Colada

Created by Viriditas (talk). Self-nominated at 01:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/S. F. Light; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Slight preference for ALT1. Great work on this article, I enjoyed reading it through! Connormah (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

New updates

• Married July 26, 1926, King's NY. No way to confirm.
  • Ancestry as a source?
    • Confirmed in McDill below.
• Listed as "divorced" at time of death."California Deaths and Burials, 1776-2000", Entry for Sol F. Light and Samuel Light, 21 Jun 1947.
  • I'm unable to access this file to confirm as it appears missing, corrupted, or out of sequential order.
• Father Samuel Light, mother Edith Frances McDill, daughter of the US Senator. They had nine children.
  • Thank goodness for Internet Archive! I can add McDills in America. Only lists six children, not nine. Perhaps three died?
• I may be misremembering, but I thought the subject had some kind of connection to missionaries, possibly his family, who were Christian missionaries in Asia, either before he was born or while he was a child. I thought there might be a connection to his later travels to Asia as an adult, perhaps retracing the steps and experiences of his family? This is all a bit hazy, but noting it here to revisit later.
  • Putting this to the side for now.
• Online genealogy site says "Sol" is short for Solomon, but no cites for this as of now.

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:S. F. Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 23:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 20:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have never learned anything about zoology or entomology before. I'll review this as a slight introduction to what seems to be an interesting subject. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: Thank you for taking this review! I hope to have your concerns addressed in the next 24-48 hours, if possible. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for such a fast response! It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for taking some time off from this. I needed to address a few outstanding DYKs. Now that's done, I can devote more time to this review. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, out of the eight reviews I have done, you have been the second quickest. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to rush off to the post office right now, but when I return I hope to finish this and we can move on to the next step. Viriditas (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm back and I've made a number of edits. Still have a few to complete, but otherwise close to finished with the first part. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Prose Y

Lead

I think entomologist should be wikilinked, I didn't know what it was before looking it up

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Should "Ralph I. Smith" and/or "Light and Smith Manual" be redlinked?

Yes. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

most on the subject of entomology: Can be "mainly on entomology" for conciseness

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

class syllabus on zoology: Can be "zoology syllabus"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

that had larger appeal: Cut, this is implicit in the fact that he published it

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

as it was considered:

• Either remove "considered" or attribute if controversial. Otherwise it is weasel wording.
• The lead says "was considered", the body later says "is considered". Keep consistent with tense.
  • Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

the first complete compendium: The source uses the words "reasonably comprehensive" which isn't the same as "complete".

Right, but I don't think that's what I intended by using the word. By "complete" I meant the first ever completed about marine invertebrates in California. At the time, there were only two such works in the entire country (if not the world?) Light's Manual, which covered the Pacific coast, and Woods Hole Manual, which covered the Atlantic coast. Neither were complete in any sense of the word, nor could they be, but they were the first "complete' works" in those fields. I see that this wording doesn't work for you, so I will change it. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed "complete". Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, I think if you meant complete in that sense, something like "first compendium of marine invertebrates completed in the north central California coastal region" uses the word correctly. It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

California coastal region ever published: Can "coastal region" just be coast?

I don't think so. It currently says "north central California coastal region", which is correct based on the original version of the manual. What were you thinking in terms of changing it? Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree "coastal region" is better if the source uses it. It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky as "coastal region" is so general, which is why north central is so important. Keep in mind, this was the region for the original version of the manual; the new manual has a far larger scope. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I explain this at the end of the Light's Manual section. "The expanded and revised fourth edition includes coverage of California and Oregon with contributions from 120 scholars." Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep that's great. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"ever published" can still be cut though, since you already said it was the first. If you want to emphasize the fact it was published, you can use "the first [published] compendium" earlier. It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Good suggestion. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this doesn't read well anymore and I feel it has lost its original meaning. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Made some changes, to be followed by more. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Biography

Wikilink "Presbyterian"?

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Light attended university at Park College, Missouri (AB, 1908)

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikilink "AB", "MA", MS"?

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

he spent time abroad in Asia, teaching for several years in Japan: can be just "he taught for two years in Japan"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

graduate school (MA, 1913), participating in a marine survey: Replacing the comma with "and" makes this read better.

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikilink "Puerto Galera"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

For about four months, from March to June 1912,

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikilink "ichthyologist"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

arose out of this period in the Philippines: "Stemmed from" may also be better wording than "arose out of"?

Puerta Galera Marine Biological Laboratory: Puerta -> Puerto

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Redlink "Puerto Galera Marine Biological Laboratory"?

I considered it, and I believe there is another article it might be redirected to here. I will take another look. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, I also think that part fits better in the legacy section as you have done. It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikilink "leave of absence"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikilink "Science"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

surprising scientists at the time who were unaware -> "challenging previous beliefs"

unaware of their prevalence in the region, previously believing the fish was rare: Says the same thing twice

Perhaps, but the redundancy is sometimes needed. I will take another look. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How about: "surprising scientists who had previously believed the fish to be rare in the region"? It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikilink "history of science discipline"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Light's paper regarding lancelets

Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

George Sarton (1884–1956), the founder of the history of science discipline, was so impressed by Light's paper regarding lancelets that he cited it in his fifteenth critical bibliography of the field for 1924:

• Attribute this or cut "was so impressed"

• See Yi Lai Luk (2020) cited below. It's a paraphrase. I'm open to changes, however. Not sure why you think this is a thing, but maybe we are reading this differently. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• "cited it in his fifteenth critical bibliography of the field for 1924" -> "cited it in his 1924 critical bibliography"

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Did Sarton do anything more than just cite it? Like explicitly praise the paper? If not, I don't see how this is notable. I'm sure Sarton cited many papers.
  • I believe it is notable as a citation for its time. I will revisit it. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yi Lai Luk 2020: "The abundance of this primitive vertebrate captured the attention of S. F. Light, an American biologist teaching at the University of Amoy at the time. Light contributed an article to Science that began as follows: "This note is to announce the discovery of an apparently inexhaustible supply of amphioxus near the University of Amoy" (Light 1923, 57). What piqued his interest was the fact that "on this little strip of Chinese coast somewhere around a billion amphioxi are caught and consumed each year." Light’s finding was so influential that George Sarton, the founder of the History of Science Society, incorporated his article in his fifteenth annotated bibliography of the history and philosophy of science, appended a personal note: “Most of us have been brought up with the idea that the amphioxus is a relatively rare animal. Light describes 'fisheries' of amphioxus near his own university, where about a billion amphioxi are caught each year! The Chinese name of the lancelet is wen shen yü, meaning fish of the god of the literature (literary composition fish). It is also called silver spear fish and carrying pole fish. Light tells the story connected with the first of these three names" (Sarton 1924, 193)...Intending his bibliography for a Western audience, Sarton was apparently quite surprised when he learned that amphioxus was so abundant at Amoy that the Chinese could make a fishing industry out of what elsewhere was viewed as a precious marine fauna. Amoy's large reserve of amphioxus was a compelling feature that appealed to both historians and scientists." Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Note, I've added the attribution to science historian Yi Lai Luk. Let me know if that clears things up or if it needs more edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's definitely notable now. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this part is great now. It reads well, is well sourced and neutral.

Above, you said "Not sure why you think this is a thing". Assuming you are referring to my comment "Attribute or cut", I'll explain and maybe you could correct me if I'm wrong.

Wikipedia:VOICE says: "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views".

Since the statement "George Sarton... was so impressed" is based on Yi Lai Luk's interpretation of Sarton's words, it is her opinion and should be attributed. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

to pursue research on termites -> "to study termites"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"he worked with the" -> "he joined the"

Not sure about this as "joined" would then precede "joint". What about participated with? Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This was a very nitpicky point for conciseness, I prefer "worked with" to "participated with" but really either is fine. It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

"Termite Investigations Committee" can be redlinked.

Done, but not convinced this is needed. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

to help find the best way to control the impact of the insects -> ", working to control the insect's impact"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Light's important role on this project was noted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in late 1929: Lacks neutrality, "The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) said Light had an important role on this project in late 1929" would be better.

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

written in collaboration with Kofoid: Link Kofoid or cut.

Already linked in the text above, so we don't want to duplicate links. And he's not just a notable co-author, he's also his thesis advisor and mentor. Viriditas (talk)

My mistake, for some reason I thought it was the first mention of Kofoid when reading. It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The book is recognized as "the first reasonably comprehensive treatment of marine invertebrates": Attribute or cut "recognized", I think attribution would be better since it uses a direct quote.

I will come back to this. The statement is attributed to a meeting of the Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists (SCAMIT), and it appears to be a summary of a presentation made by biologist John W. Chapman (Oregon State University). However, the statement itself is not unique to SCAMIT nor Chapman, but is rather a matter of history, so attributing it here seems weird. It would be like attributing a common fact about history to a specific historian. I will figure out a way to fix this when I come back to it. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If you can find multiple reliable sources which say the same thing, you could describe it as a widespread view. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

But that would require removing the specific quote. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I will just temporarily attribute it to the Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists (SCAMIT) until I can figure this out. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Serendipity is a strange thing. Just 45 seconds after writing that, I hit the wrong button on my keyboard while perusing my source files, and a random citation popped up on my screen. Carlton et al. 1988. What's this, I say? Looking closely, it's an article I saved to write a bio about Ralph I. Smith. It's amazing in several ways, the most notable of which is that it reproduces the PhD diagram of all of the people who were influenced by him. Putting all that aside for the moment, there's an entire section on the long history of Light's Manual with additional support for the statement. I will get to it in a bit. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic. It is a wonderful world (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikilink "marine zoology" and "invertebrate zoology"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

later publishing it in book form as the Laboratory and Field Text in Invertebrate Zoology (1941) -> "which later became the Laboratory and Field Text in Invertebrate Zoology (1941)". Publishing and book form is implied.

The point here is that Light's syllabus became so popular that he was asked to publish it. I will take another look. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If that is the point, it is not clear that he published it because of popular demand. I assumed he completed it and published it because he saw the significance it would have in the future or for some personal satisfaction. It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he published it because of popular demand, that was the original point. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I will try to clear this up. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, I already know how to to fix this, but I probably won't get to it until later. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to reply to this:

I assumed he completed it and published it because he saw the significance it would have in the future or for some personal satisfaction

It's actually the opposite, and the fact you came away with that impression tells me I need to fix this. Apparently, the success of Light's manual was due primarily to all the help he was getting from students and other researchers, as he had a lot of other things going on. His obit mentions his modesty and his concern for others, and I think that comes through here. He was far more interested in helping others get their work published than in his own; at least, that was my takeaway. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The bit you added in the lead:

but due to popular demand it was published as an invertebrate zoology textbook and field guide in 1941

Clears this up, but obviously it will need to also be supported in the main text. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Working on it now. Unfortunately, I didn't leave a good paper trail, but at least I have the sources to pour through. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I'll just remove it for now and add it back in when I find it. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Temporarily removed and on hold until I can track this down. Poor sourcing on my part. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

On June 21, 1947, Light drowned as he was swimming in Clear Lake, while fishing on summer vacation -> Was he swimming or fishing?

Great question! I believe the sources say he was on a fishing trip, but drowned while swimming, but I will revisit them again. I used to go swimming in that lake, and it's called "clear lake" for a reason. How he came to drown is a real mystery and no source discusses the details. His death certificate, which should go into a bit of detail at least, is online, but I spent over an hour trying to find it among hundreds of others, and it looks like it is missing. In other words, there is more information about his death available, and the digital record of his certificate is online, but when I go to download it, it appears to be gone. I will try again. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Some additional detail would be great! Otherwise, "while on a summer vacation fishing trip" or "while on a fishing trip during summer vacation" is clearer. It is a wonderful world (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the reason I didn't use that wording is because one of the sources originally wrote it that way. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I will come back to this and rewrite it. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed "swimming" for the moment, as the cited source didn't support it. However, I think it is supported by another source. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Done for now. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to try and download it one more time. It took me an hour last time and I ended up with nothing. There's basically an online entry that points to where his digital death certificate is located, and there is good information there. But when I try to find the file, it doesn't appear on the screen, just a pointer saying it should be in this folder. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't find it. I will put in a request at RX. Done for now. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Just spent some time going through the records again and I think I almost found it. However, the system locked me out, possibly due to unusual activity, as I was browsing fast through 1700 digital records and I might have triggered some kind of automatic filter. I will try again later. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I finally found it after browsing through more than 900 records. Cause of death "accidental drowning". Nothing about swimming, although it looks like his body was removed from Clear Lake. Oddly, they couldn't determine the time of death, only the day. He had been in the area for four days. The death certificate notes that he was divorced at the time, which I would like to note in the article, but I'm not sure how to word it to avoid undue implications. One unusual thing I noticed is that swimming in Clear Lake in the summer months can expose people to cyanotoxins from algae. In rare instances, the EPA says such exposure can lead to respiratory failure. I'm not sure this was even known at the time of his death. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Well researched, I agree with everything you said. Interesting idea about cyanotoxins. I'll leave it up to you how to implement the divorce information, it's tricky. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I added the "accidental death" part with a citation to the death certificate. It's odd how difficult it is to find marriage and divorce info, even today in the US. Perhaps it is different in other countries. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Personal life

was said to have had -> "was known for"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

while his own wife

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Former student Joel Hedgpeth remembers that Light "always signed himself S. F. Light, or S. F. L. He obviously didn't care much for what his parents had done for him...So sometimes, we use those terms, being overfamiliar in our behind-his-back sort of references.": I feel this is unnecessary detail, though maybe it has some significance I am missing. His naming preferences are already mentioned.

Hedgpeth is saying they called him by his full name when he wasn't around to make fun of him. I think it serves as an additional, independent source other than the subject and his wife to support the idea that he didn't like to use his full name. I find this important because neither the subject or his wife are the source for this claim but rather Hedgpeth and his other colleagues. This gives the claim (which was used as a DYK) some weight beyond hearsay or gossip. There's also another aspect to it, namely Light's personal relationships with his students. Here, we see Hedgpeth and Light may not have got on so well, whereas with Olga Hartman, we learn that he gave her exceptional privileges and respect, something that we don't exactly have the answer for here. I didn't go into this too much, preferring to leave pointers and hints instead. I think this serves to add color and dimension to the human interpersonal relationships behind the man. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me, happy to keep it. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This has me thinking that I need to add the bit about Hartman to balance out Hedgpeth. I think the reason I didn't do this is because the source material is buried in the middle of a long article that would take me 30 minutes to find and write and update, so maybe I'm just being lazy? Anyway, from memory, the article shows that Light gave Harman preferential treatment during her graduate work, however, it isn't clear if she earned this through her work or for another reason, but it is noticeable that her colleagues felt upset that she was one of Light's favorite students at the time. IIRC, she was married at the time and very conservative like Light. Reading between the lines, it seems that she was far more mature and had it together professionally than younger students (she was very old for a grad student, maybe 5-10 years older than the others, I can't recall the exact years at this time); I think the real reason was because she shared Light's passion for the same niche research subject and they might have connected on this level alone. Sadly, just before she died, Hartman intentionally destroyed all of her personal papers, so a lot of history has been lost. After writing her biography and submitting the DYK, one of her relatives posted a comment on the talk page, but I'm not sure how that can help us resolve any of this. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that adding a small part about her would benefit the coverage of the article and balance out Hedgepeth, but it definitely isn't needed for broad coverage. It's an awesome story that Hartman's daughter posted on her talk page! It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Light was quietly active in the Christian community and belonged to the First Congregational Church of Berkeley: Implied by him being in the church

Again, this is intentional redundancy. I will return to it. I think one can be inactive in the community and still belong to a church, and it was my intent to show that the opposite was true. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

he participated in the role of -> "was"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

members of the zoological community -> "zoologists"?

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

top 255 practicing scientists in the U.S., of which he was rated one of a group of 37 top zoologists in the country. -> "top 255 practicing scientists and 37 zoologists in the U.S." prevents repeating information

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

During his lifetime, Light published 70 papers

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

many in the field of entomology

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

zoologist Richard M. Eakin

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hedgpeth recalls: If we do end up removing the previous reference to Hedgpeth, he will need to be introduced here

Wikilink "pedagogue"

Done, but I prefer not to link within quotes. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

A notable group: More neutral

Done. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

who like Light before her

Not sure that helps, as "before her" tells the reader that Wilson was following in Light's footsteps by pursuing and updating the previous research on this subject. I feel this redundancy is important. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fine It is a wonderful world (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikilink "oceanography" and "systematist"

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Light also sat on the thesis committee for notable scholars: For neutrality and conciseness. Perhaps you could also add "at Berkeley" for clarification?

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reeves had never taken any courses from Light, but had heard he "had a reputation for being a very difficult man". After the stressful experience, for which he earned a PhD in medical entomology and parasitology, Reeves came away with the impression that Light was a kind man.

I think this part is mostly irrelevant, and would be happy if it was all removed, but at least it should be made much more concise and needs more neutrality. Here are some improvements:

• Reeves had never taken any courses from Light, but had heard he [was] "had a reputation for being a very difficult man"
• After the stressful experience, for which he earned a PhD in medical entomology and parasitology -> "After he finished his PhD in medical entomology and parasitology"
• Wikilink parasitology

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Move the section to personal life, where is other characteristics such as his conservative attitude are mentioned

• Not done. See comment below. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• All quotes require inline citations

• Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Llike Hedgpeth, Reeves' reminiscence is giving us some indication of Light's character. I'm curious why you find this kind of study irrelevant; this insight into what Light's reputation was like among his peers and students paints a picture for the reader. Reeves' acknowledgment of Light as a difficult person also ties into and supports Hedgpeth's take, more of which I should probably add, not remove. I'm not opposed to moving it to personal life, but this isn't about his personal life, it's about his professional life, and his legacy as a kind but difficult man who helped scholars along their career path. I'm not opposed to improving it, but I do disagree about its so-called irrelevancy, particularly in terms of a biography which is multi-faceted and should explore every aspect of a person to give us a more accurate and complete picture of their life and who they were in relation to others. This might be the point where we disagree. We are not just what we have done or achieved, or even what we think we are through our writing and publications; we also exist in relation to others, and it is through their eyes that a more neutral and accurate image emerges. I will come back and revisit this, although I have added the cite to the quote per your suggestion. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  More from one of his obits: "He will be remembered for his modesty, extending to an underestimation of self, for exacting criticism in the use of words and ideas, which drove him now to caution and again to very forward positions, for a sincere interest in human relations, and for a strong appreciation of natural beauty." Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  More: "Equal in importance to his scientific research was Professor Light's teaching, at both elementary and advanced levels. He took great pains in planning and executing his courses, which were outstanding in their appeal and challenge to the serious student. He influenced particularly the points of view and habits of thought of the graduate student. His unique courses in marine zoölogy given at the seashore under difficult conditions--in a tavern, a hotel lobby or a dance hall of some beach resort--maintained standards of excellence unsurpassed by any center of instruction in marine biology in the country." Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that we are more than just our achievements. Unfortunately in this case, the reliable sources seem to be more focused on his achievements than his characteristics, and therefore that is why he is notable.

  The whole paragraph is cited to one source, which looks like it's an interview transcript. This means we are devoting a paragraph on what one student said once. Despite this, I agree that his character is important to include, which is why I am happy to include it.

  However, I think paragraph can be more concise without losing its meaning, and has other improvements which I listed above. Feel free to push back on them and I will justify further. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  @It is a wonderful world: I would classify the interview as oral history, and Hedgpeth has been cited elsewhere in this regard. However, let's take a break and put that all aside. Looking over this review, I think you've bent over backwards to be fair, reasonable, and kind, leaving me at a disadvantage in return. For this reason, I would like to change gears and do less arguing and move towards resolution as a way for me to show you the same respect and to demonstrate that I value your time. In this regard, we can jump to the natural conclusion of this argument and consider my proposed compromise, as you have already offered your own. How would you feel if I moved much of that material in question, not to the personal life section, but to a footnote instead? Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I actually really like that you are pushing back on my points. It forces me to fully justify my position and a lot of the time realize my mistakes. Since I am relatively new to to the GA process, it is great experience for me. It also means that I won't make the same mistakes in the future, which will make future reviews better and faster.

  I agree we should speed things up a bit though, so lets consolidate the three points I raised about this paragraph:

  • Source reliability of interview transcript: We both agree this is usable as a source, so lets not worry about that anymore.
  • Moving to another section: I forgot to mention this in my previous reply that I am happy for it to remain where it is. Let's keep it there.
  • Content of paragraph: This is where my main concerns still lie. I will justify them in more detail below:

  after the stressful experience, for which he earned a PhD in medical entomology and parasitology: Stressful experience is an opinion, so it shouldn't be in Wikipedia:WIKIVOICE.

  Reeves had never taken any courses from Light, but had heard he [was] "had a reputation for being a very difficult man: Keeps the meaning of the sentence intact, but significantly condenses it. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The zoological literature cites Light's research as an example of a historical body of work that contributed to an attempt to find answers to open problems in the study of termites: This is WP:SYNTH, a statement like this should be explicitly supported by a reliable source.

It's an introductory sentence that attempts to summarize the paragraph. I am open to changing it, however. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Still working on this. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. I've temporarily removed it until I can figure out a better way to say it. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this paragraph needs an introductory sentence, and it would be hard to write one which doesn't draw unsourced conclusions. Though, I would be open to expanding this paragraph if you could find more sources which make statements about Light's impact on newer research. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

of which research continues to this day: It's not clear what "of which" refers to. Is it referring to Light's work, the larger body of "pioneering studies", or the specific research on insect pheromones? It is also unsourced.

It's a blue sky statement indicating the unsolved open problem, but I'm happy to remove it. I was attempting to draw a parallel between Light's work on open problems with termites and the open problems in marine biology, such as his work on the jelly fish explained later. I've removed it.

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

modern research: Not sure if 2010 counts as modern

You raise an important point, but has termite research advanced in the last 15 years? I will revisit and revise this. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Removed. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

summarized the state of modern research in this area of inquiry, pointing to Light's research -> "cited Light", the other information is implied by the quote or original research.

Partly done. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the final paragraph after the points have been addressed

Through a lot of the "Personal life" and "Legacy" sections, many of the references to "Light" can be replaced with "he".

Not sure I see it, but I will take a look. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Done, although our styles might be different here. I prefer using alternating uses of "Light" and "he", rather than "Light...Light...Light" or "He...his...he". Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough, I can see why that would make things clearer. I probably won't pick up on this in future GA reviews, since you have highlighted it is more of a stylistic preference than an implementation of conciseness. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Light's Manual

was both incomplete and in need of corrections

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

the first edition of the book was unavailable to students, as it was out of print: Implied, also technically incorrect since they could get it second hand

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I will revisit the source again because I think the point about the availability is important, which was one contributing factor to the creation of the new edition. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think "was out of print. Editing and revisions were needed before it could be republished" makes this point clear enough. The only problem is it doesn't mention that there was demand for a new edition, but that would require a source. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing and revisions were needed before it could be republished: This is almost fully repeated in the next sentence, I think this sentence can be cut.

Perhaps the problem is that I'm not communicating effectively. I think the sentence is needed, but I acknowledge there may be a better way to compose it. The point I'm trying to make that is rapidly being lost here, is that: 1) at the time of Light's death a new version was needed because the old manual was out of print and was difficult for students to obtain, and a new version required major editing and revisions for various reasons. Smith came on to do this job, which evidently took about a decade or so, with help from relevant academics in the field. I don't see it as redundant but more as a statement of the problem followed by an explanation of how the problem was solved. If you can think of another way to do this that preserves this history, I'm all ears. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Upon re-reading, and reading your point, I agree that keeping the sentence would be better as the "statement of the problem followed by an explanation of how the problem was solved" makes it clearer for the reader.

Separately, if you wish to make the point that Smith did the editing due to demand, and the manual being "difficult for students to obtain", then you will need a source to support that. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

eventually publishing: Editorialising and conciseness

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Collections and Selected publications

Looks good here :)

Sources Y

I am waiting for Internet Archive to come back online before checking references, as the sources rely heavily on it. It is a wonderful world (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood. It is holding me back on several articles at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you ever need me to copy a sentence or two for you from the source itself for you to review here, I should be able to do that, so just ask. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability Y

Almost all journals and books. All look reliable.

Spot check Y

[4a, b, c, d, e, f, g]: Y

[11]: Y

[19]: Y

[24a, b]: Y

[28]: Y

[36]: Y

[38]: Y

Stable Y

Media Y

Captions Y

Tags Y

The jellyfish drawing needs a tag justifying it's free use in the Philippines.

Looking into this now. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Added {{PD-Philippines}} Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions

Using properly formatted references means the reader can simply hover over the cite number to see it, and will be maintained better by automated tools in the future. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've used properly formatted references in the deep past. I took a break for many years and came back, only to find many of the references broken because the template maintainers had changed them over time but never fixed the template errors as they accumulated. At that point, I had a conversation with the template maintainers, who told me they took zero responsibility for the issue. After explaining that they were the ones who broke the templates, they said in so many words that it wasn't their problem. At that point, I made the decision never to use the formatted reference style ever again. As for the hover and preview, it works perfectly on my end, so perhaps I have the tools in the preferences doing most of the heavy lifting instead? Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame. I'll check out those preferences later when I'm not on mobile. Anyways, the reference formatting isn't a GA requirement so it doesn't really matter. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It's ironic, though, as I was an early adopter of the templates from the beginning. Imagine taking a break for many years only to come back and see all the templates broken on the pages you wrote and the people responsible telling you they don't care. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, annoying and now all the old articles will need cleanup It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: do you think I'm being unreasonable? Should I switch back to templates and stop being so stubborn? Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I just checked I had the reference preview gadget enabled and I do. For some reason you are able to preview the links but I am not!

In terms of being unreasonable, I don't really have an opinion, it's hard to judge. If you use them, you are setting a precedent that it is fine for the maintainers to break them and expect everyone to follow, which is obviously not good. But at the same time, they are in such widespread use now that the only people you are really hurting by not using them is the readers. It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I realize this is going off topic, so this will be the last comment on citation templates from me, but take a look at the citation errors in our article on Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan. That's really bad. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I was so confused haha It is a wonderful world (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like template vandalism, as there were no edits to the page itself. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You might benefit from WP:REDEX if you would like to improve your conciseness. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I think it's also a matter of style. I find that articles that lack redundancy make for poor reading. Some of the most popular complaints about featured articles is that they are dry and uninteresting. I personally find that some redundancy helps in this regard, but I admit this is a stylistic preference. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas I understand what you mean, feel free to push back against my conciseness points above. In my opinion, flow is more important than conciseness, but it is normally possible to achieve both. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

All good points to consider. Thank you for the guidance. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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.