Talk:Susan M. Kauzlarich/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 15:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I will review this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Highly biased and far from neutral. Other than publications and praise, it contains little. Some examples: "world-renowned expert", "particularly well known", " innovative research", "[her] work was distinguished", "is very active in her profession", "is well known", "her outstanding mentorship", " longstanding global expert",
- A lot of trivial stuff.
- Every researcher uses some set of techniques for their research. What is point of stating that she used x-ray absorption spectroscopy or neutron diffraction?
- "Kauzlarich is very active in her profession at large". Every academic is.
- Research section starts with the following: "Kauzlarich's research has spanned many topics which concern the synthesis and characterization of novel solid state materials and innovative structures. She specifically has targeted the discovery, design, and study of systems which hold promise for both advancing fundamental knowledge alongside the development of new technologies with the potential for global impact for both energy and also in the area of human health. Some of Kauzlarich's publications from her independent research career are listed below:" There is nothing concrete here, only puffery and repetitions from previous section.
- In short, fails criteria 1a (not clear and concise, highly verbose and repetitive), 1b (Puffery and Peacock terms, see above), and criteria 4 (not neutral). I won't go for further criteria; qualifies for Quick Fail based on these. This article needs to be rewritten entirely so that it is neutral and concise. With so little info, it won't qualify for GA even then though.
Good Article review progress box
|
