Talk:Trevor Kincaid

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 20:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary: This looks close to a pass, but a few minor issues should be cleared up first.

Good article criteria

• 1a. Well-written, respecting copyright laws: for the most part. I found one or two copied phrases and one or two grammatical issues but nothing significant.
• 1b. Complies wiith style and layout guidelines: again, for the most part. But some materal in the lead does not properly summarize the rest of the artcle.
• 2a. References are well-formatted: yes.
• 2b. The references are reliable, and source all claims: for the most part, with some exceptions noted below.
• 2c. The article does not include original research: probably, but see the complaints below about sourcing for the snail research.
• 3a. The article addresses the main aspects of its subject: mostly; some minor missing information detailed below.
• 3b. The article avoids going into unnecessary detal: yes.
• 4. The article is neutral and unbiased: yes.
• 5. The article is stable: very. No significant changes since February.
• 6a. Images are properly tagged and used within copyright restrictions: probably, but see below.
• 6b. Images are relevant and properly captioned: yes.

Lead

• Having a single-paragraph lead is in accordance with WP:LEADLENGTH for an article of this relatively short total length (about 6k bytes).

Y done

• entomology and malacology — see WP:TECHNICAL — if we're going to use technical language such as this within the lead of an article, we should probably gloss those terms.

? sorry, not sure what this means

Y done

• "at least 47 plant and animal species were, in turn, named after him." — shouldn't this be mentioned with its source in more detail in the legacy section, rather than including it only in the lead and sourcing it in the lead?

Y done

Family and childhood

• Probably worth repeating the birth date here.

Y done

• The source for this section is mostly offline but is searchable through Google books' snippet search. The entire phrase "on the staff of Armory Square Hospital in Washington, DC" appears to be a direct copy from this source.

Y done

University and national acclaim

• The Burke museum source says nothing about what it is being used to source, national acclaim as an undergraduate.

Y done

• It would be appropriate to include the dates of his bachelor's and master's degrees.

 Pending will do soon

Y done

University of Washington

• The section title is odd because he had already been at Washington several years before the events documented here

Y done

• "Consisting initially of just a log cabin, Kincaid...": I don't think Kincaid was a log cabin; reword.

Y done

• The section mixes up the geography as if everything in Friday Harbor was a single place. In the source, the single cabin chosen for the initial site is south of Friday Harbor, but Point Caution must be a different site because it is to the north. And our article doesn't even mention the cannery also used between the times for these other two sites.

Y done

Later research

• The "long overdue reports" on snails are sourced only to entries in an inventory of his papers. There is no text in the source about these reports. The word "snail" does not appear in the source. The evaluation that these reports were overdue does not appear in the source.

Y done

Death and legacy

• The source for the parenthetical remark about the alumni honor should not have a space before its footnote mark.

Y done

Selected publications

• Some of these are online (although possibly paywalled); the online versions can be found through Google scholar and it would be helpful to link them here. It is also standard when citing academic papers to include volume and issue numbers; these are given for some but not all of the references. The formatting is not exactly Wikipedia's Citation Style 1 or CS2, but close enough and (except for the volume/issues) consistent enough.

 Pending will do soon

 Done. I made them more consistent, though not exactly CS1 or CS2, and added links for all publications. The list looks lovely now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Image copyrights

• The two older images are tagged as public domain because they were published before 1923. They were certainly taken before 1923. But when were they first publshed? Nevertheless, the presence of one of them in the (public domain) WA state archives certainly suggests that it is freely usable. What about the other?

 Pending will do soon

Y done

—David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

David Eppstein thank you very much for your thorough review. If it's okay, I've added updates below each of your comments. Please let me know if anything I've marked as "done" is not adequately done. I'll ping you when I've gotten to the rest of the items. LavaBaron (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Re the WP:TECHNICAL complaint in the lead: I don't think it is reasonable to expect readers to know what malacology is, and even entomology might be unfamiliar to some (or confusable with etymology), so it would be helpful either to briefly define those terms where it is used, or to rewrite using simpler words (he studied insects, marine life, and molluscs). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

David Eppstein, thanks. I think I've corrected the other issues with the exception of selected publications. I'm not familiar enough with the appropriate way to place inline, off-wiki links to do this myself so have filed a request at the GoC. LavaBaron (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. In the meantime enough of this has been done that I'm passing this for GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)