Talk:William Lax/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 10:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I will make a note here when the review is complete, which may take several days or more. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

• Why is there no image (drawing, painting, engraving) of the subject available? Viriditas (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There simply isn't one available of him to be found online, and one may not exist.Farrtj (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but I had to ask. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a scanned image of the title page for Remarks on a Supposed Error in the Elements of Euclid available for free use in the article. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Done

Lead

• The lead section should summarize his most notable contributions/achievements/publications. For example, see the "known for" entry in the infobox. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Lax was born in Ravensworth in the North Riding of Yorkshire. He matriculated to Trinity College, Cambridge in 1781 and graduated Bachelor of Arts in 1785 as the Senior Wrangler and first Smith's prizeman of his year. In 1786 he was elected a fellow of Trinity College, ordained as a minister in 1787 and received his Master of Arts in 1788. He was admitted a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1796. Lax was granted the livings of vicar of Marsworth, Buckinghamshire and of St Ippolyts near Hitchin, Hertfordshire in 1801, where he erected an observatory.
  • This is just a comment on style: in general, the lead section of biographies doesn't focus so much on dry chronologies replete with dates, but with a narrative that explains who the person is, what they have accomplished, and most importantly, why the reader should care. Stylistically, biographical lead sections use dates sparingly, preferring to state the birth and death dates in the beginning, and noting dates for important achievements as an illustration of the timeline. To see how we compose the lead narrative, take a quick look at the lead sections of related articles within Category:GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles and Category:FA-Class biography (science and academia) articles for guidance. As a reader, I want to know why it is significant that he was the Smith's prizeman, what it meant for him to be admitted as a fellow to the RS, and why it was important that he constructed an observatory and for what reason. Draw the reader in, not just with a cold reading of facts and dates, but with a story about the life of the man, and give the reader a reason to care. Don't just explain the significance of the biographical subject, demonstrate it. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Done

• Senior Wrangler and first Smith's prizeman
  • Why "Senior Wrangler" but not "First Smith's Prizeman" or "first Smith's Prizeman". I suppose it doesn't matter as long as it is consistent, but I am curious about proper usage. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Done

Early life

• where he was taught by Thomas Dixon
  • Assuming Dixon was a teacher, why is this important? Is Dixon famous for something? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Lax was conferred a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in 1785 and graduated as the Senior Wrangler and was awarded the first Smith's Prize of his year.
  • This appears unsourced; as it is highlighted in the lead section, there is an assumption that it is already sourced in the body. Is it? Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Career

• In 1807 Lax delivered Remarks on a Supposed Error in the Elements of Euclid to the Royal Society, however it was not published in Philosophical Transactions.
  • But was it even published? Was it self-published by Lax as a "pamphlet" or was it published by someone other than the RS? The current wording implies it never saw the light of day, which is apparently not true. Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Done

• Lax was an assistant tutor from 1797 until 1801, a role he had to resign from when he decided to enter into a marriage.
  • A role he resigned when he married Lady X. Do we have a name? It's a bit wordy to say "he had to resign from when he decided to enter into a marriage". Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • So, nine paragraphs later I discover her name is Margaret Cradock. That's strange. Any reason you can't say her name here? Also, saying "he had to resign" unnecessarily implies something negative about the relationship. It's enough to just say, "Lax was an assistant tutor from 1797 until 1801, when he married Margaret Cradock." Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)  Done

• See also: Lowndean Professor of Astronomy and Geometry
  • That's an unusual use of a see also heading. Typically, in a biography, the term would be linked to its first usage ("Lax was appointed Lowndean Professor of Astronomy and Geometry") in the first sentence, not in the heading. This becomes clear when you look at the article, which is a small stub/list. In other words, there isn't really a parent topic to read more about, just a list of professors who have held the chair, and such a link is typically found inline, not in a heading. On the other hand, you may have plans to expand it, in which case, it is fine. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Done

• See also: Royal Society
• See also: Board of Longitude
  • Same as above; usually those terms would be linked in the first usage, inline. The paragraphs aren't about the Royal Society nor the Board of Longitude, but Lax's career as a fellow, service to the Board, and contributions. Again, this appears to be a stylistic issue, which has no real bearing on the success of this nomination, but threw me off as a reader. The bottom line is, this particular use of hatnotes is unusual, unnecessary, and distracting, and deviates from typical usage outlined at Wikipedia:Hatnote and Wikipedia:Summary style. I'm just making a note of it here in the review. My recommendation is to remove them and use the inline link in the first instance, reserving hatnotes for expected usage only. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Done

• Lax served on the Board of Longitude in 1802 and 1803.
  • What is the Board of Longitude? the reader asks. Pointing them to a see also isn't helpful. I notice that the first sentence of the second paragraph helps to answer this question: "As a scientific member of the Board, Lax was one of eighteen men who were: "ultimately responsible for the form and contents of the Nautical Almanac." Have you thought about moving it up to the first paragraph, second sentence position? Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Done

External links

• What do you mean by "external links"? Per WP:LAYOUT do you mean "further reading" or "bibliography"? Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)  Done

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Per WP:LEAD, summarize the main points, including his major contributions

   Per WP:LAYOUT, the current external links section might be misnamed

   Unusual and unexpected use of hatnotes (at least to me) in place of inline linking

   I removed "Lax received criticism..for his laxity". That's very clever, but alliteration is discouraged, and this reads like a virtual wink to the reader.

   I realize you dislike commas, but this sentence is impenetrable: "However due to an enmity of the President Joseph Banks friends of Charles Hutton and Maskelyne such as Lax, but also Samuel Vince and Thomas Mudge frequently saw their submissions for publications overlooked."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   If you are going to use material from the body in the lead, please make sure that it is cited first in the body (for example, Senior Wrangler, Smith's Prize)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Prefer image of the subject in the infobox, if available

   An image of his contributions, such as a book frontispiece (or title page) may also be informative

   With all the architecture, one might think this article was about an architect

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I really enjoyed reading this article, but the lack of commas made it more difficult than necessary. I realize that this is your style of writing, but it is not easy for the reader. There's also a few too many uses of "however" that could be trimmed back. I think it would also help the reader if you would format the references in a more consistent manner, but that isn't required for GA. Overall, I think you've got enough material and interest here to take it to the next level. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the review, it seems solid. I'll get round to the rest of the changes shortly. I'll just ask you to bear in mind that Lax is a very minor figure. It was very difficult to find any information on him at all. The point of him is that he seems to be a man who had immense intellectual potential who did very little with it. Farrtj (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I will attempt to finish the review later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm half-asleep, so it will have to wait for at least one more day. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Back. Working on closing this out. Changes look great. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. See above. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)