Jump to content

Talk:Vitold Belevitch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleVitold Belevitch has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 10, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that electric circuit theorist Vitold Belevitch discovered a mathematical basis for Zipf's law from linguistics?

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my brief overview, I see no major problems, but I will take some time to comb through the details. It looks to be an interesting article. --Tea with toast (話) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue needing to be addresses

[edit]

Everything is looking pretty good; I've only had to make a few copy edits to the text. There is one worrisome sentence in the "Education" section: "In 1960 he became an extraordinary professor.". The use of the word "extraordinary" is unencyclopedic (a peacock term). The word should be replaced if not eliminated. Did he become a tenured professor in 1960? Was he given some sort of honour? I do not have the Vandewalle text, so I can not check for myself.

I will place the status of this review "on hold" until this can be addressed. I hope this can be done in a week's time. --Tea with toast (話) 01:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tea with toast, the Vandewalle text is available here from an ftp site on the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. "Extraordinary professor" is the translation of buitengewoon hoogleraar, a professor on the same level as gewoon hoogleraar, but also working outside the university in private or public sector (see nl:Hoogleraar#In België). -- SchreyP (messages) 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SchreyP, for your response. Do you think we could translate the word as "Associate Professor" or "Adjunct Professor" for this article? I don't think "Extraordinary Professor" is a good translation. --Tea with toast (話) 18:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tea with toast, reading the definitions the most close is Adjunct Professor. Belevitch's primary job was director of "Laboratoire de Recherche MBLE", later called "Philips Research Laboratories Belgium", till 1984. He started initially as part-time professor in 1953, and became buitengewoon hoogleraar in 1960. In Belgium this means that you have the rang/level of a full professor, but you are doing this only part-time, sometimes even free of charge (not clear in this context). His main job was outside the university. If you would allow rang in the title, the more precise would be Adjunct Full Professor in US terms. I hope this helps? -- SchreyP (messages) 19:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is what is meant, it is not a peacock term. I have now wikilinked it to an article that explains the term. SpinningSpark 19:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Professor#Netherlands, the term "buitengewoon hoogleraar" is better translated to "Special Professor". I have changed this in the article. If there are any further changes made to this section, please keep the untranslated Dutch "buitengewoon hoogleraar" in the article. With that, I can now pass the article!--Tea with toast (話) 14:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Well done!

--Tea with toast (話) 14:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]