Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Howard Florey/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2023 [1].

Howard Florey

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Howard Florey, the scientist who led the team that developed penicillin. They developed techniques for growing, purifying and manufacturing the drug, determined its chemical and physical structure, discovered how it worked, tested it for toxicity and efficacy on animals, and carried out the first clinical trials. The development of antibiotics revolutionised medicine and agriculture. His discoveries are estimated to have saved over 80 million lives, and earned him a share of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1945. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Sir_Howard_Florey.jpg: as per the tag given, also needs a US tag and first publication details. Ditto File:Howard_Florey_with_sister_Hilda_on_arrival_in_Melbourne,_1944.jpg
    Added USRA template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments, CT55555

[edit]

Lots of prose comments, none are critical, all should be considered very mild suggestions:

  1. Lead: I think commas are needed after "In 1941", "In 1935" and "In 1962".
    Did a sweep through the article and added the required commas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Early life and education: possibly link "South Australia". A mild suggestion.
    Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Early life: should it say "More congenial....to something"? More congenial to her health" perhaps? I'm unsure. A very mild suggestion.
    I think it is alright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Early life: comma after "In 1911"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rhodes scholar: It surprised me that the 2018 cash equivalent of £300 is given in dollars and not pounds, or both.
    Dollars replaced pounds in 1966. Back then the Australian pound was tied to the value of gold like the sterling, but after 1929 the Australian pound left the gold standard and the two currencies diverged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rhodes scholar: link "cerebral cortex" and to Brain to Brain (journal) and 1924 Oxford University Arctic Expedition to List of Arctic expeditions
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. London Hospital: I don't like one paragraph sections. This could be fixed by breaking it into 2 or more paragraphs.
    Split paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. LH: Suggest changing "Florey was unhappy at London Hospital" to something like "Florey was unhappy with working at London Hospital".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. LS: "...the mercy of..." reads like the reader should know that there are scheduling or reliability issues, but the reader doesn't, so some context/explanation would help.
    I don't see that; it merely means that his hours had to conform to the timetable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. UofC: maybe change "a little" to "slightly"? Just a very mild suggestion.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. UofC: I did expect a comment about the employment of child labour in a medical lab, if that was normal? Legal? Could that be added?
    According to our article on raising of school leaving age in England and Wales, the school leaving age in the UK was 14 until 1947.
  12. UofS first sentence: change "Cambridge" to "Cambridge University" I think.
    I don't think that is necessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. UofS: "not overlooked" is a double negative. Can you say "noticed" or something else?
    It is a turn of phrase I use a lot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. UofS: "Top notch" seems a little colloquial, could it be changed for more formal language?
    Changed to "first rate". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oxford: Should it say "Oxford University"? I think this is about the academic institution, not the city.
    I guess so. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Throughout: cash equivalents seem to vary between 2018, 2021 and other years. I assume this is unavoidable, but if it is avoidable, would be nice to have consistent years for easier comparisons. Not a critical issue.
    They are handled by the template. I will see if we can update the Australian one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oxford: I think it should be "forty to fifty" rather than "forty or fifty" just being logical.
    Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oxford: link to Medical Research Council (United Kingdom) here (the first mention) and delink later)
    Already linked on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oxford: change "obtain" to "employ" or "hire" or "contract" or something like that.
    I don't think any of those would be correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oxford: Is "Henceforth" a bit of a unnecessarily fancy or archaic word to use?
    Doesn't seem archaic to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Throughout be consistent with UK or United Kingdom.
    Consisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oxford: Say "was sometimes strict" rather than "could be strict"? Anyone could be strict, but were they?
    Changed to "was strict". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Penicillin: I think authorized is not Australian English (i.e. I think authorised is)
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Penicillin: link to gangrene and staphylococcus
    Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Penicillin: "drum up" seems colloquial
    Changed to "generate". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. North American supply: say which war (i.e. WWII)
    Already said it was the second world war above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Clinical trials: "case No. 12" I am not sure the abbreviation is optimal. Can you say "their twelfth case" or something like that?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  28. North Africa: link to Adelaide
    Already linked above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  29. North Africa: should "Military Hospital for head injuries" be "Military Hospital for Head Injuries"?
    Changed to "St Hugh's Military Hospital (Head Injuries)." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  30. North Africa: I'm unsure but should "military rank" be "a military rank"? or "a military role"?
    Military rank is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  31. North Africa: link to War Office
    Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  32. North Africa: Change "made available for Allied invasion of Italy" to "made available for the Allied invasion of Italy" or "made available, ahead of the Allied invasion of Italy" perhaps?
    Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Soviet Union: the one sentence section looks odd, but I understand why it is like that. Is there any way to reduce the number of sections here? (I see maybe there is not)
  34. Throughout: the term "the children" I find out of place. Should "his children" be used, that seems more normal.
    Seems normal to me, but chasged as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Cephalosporin: Should Gram-positive bacteria be capitalised?
    De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Cephalosporin:Should "The Oxford team" be the "The Oxford University team". The article talks about the university and the city, so the need to differentiate exists.
    I don't think it is needed here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Cephalosporin: Comma after "By 1978" I think
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  38. President of the Royal Society: change "...1957, By..." to "...1957. By..."
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Provost of Queens: I think it should be "Provost of Queens College, Oxford"
    I guess so. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Provost of Queens: "On the other hand" is out of place, as that is normally a phrase that is followed by a "one one hand..." intro. Maybe something like "Conversely..." would flow better?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Personal life: I think "cardiac" is more widely understood than "cardiacal" so a mild suggestion to change that, but if you know something that I don't, then ignore this.
    Changed to "heart". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Personal life: can we be more specific than "the Caribbean", i.e. the country?
    Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Honours and awards: "honorary" is not Australian English (note used multiple times)
    "honorary" is correct in Australian English, per our official Style manual. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Death: I think "of a congestive heart failure" should be "of congestive heart failure" but I am not certain.
    Deleted "a". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Death: "Although Florey was an agnostic" implies there is a tension between Agnosticism and christianity, but I think that is not necessarily true. I think that it is possible and common to believe in christianity and also to believe that the beliefs of christianity cannot be proven, or known (but still can be believed). Atheists are in tension, Agnostics are not. So the "although" is out of place. I think in some contexts (North American" Agnosticism is colloquially used for "mild atheism" but I think that is not technically correct. I may be in WP:OR territory here, so others should critique my logic perhaps. Later it says "disbelief" so maybe we should call him an atheist?
    We have an article on Christian agnosticism, but in view of the Church's refusal to place a memorial plaque, I think that the implication of tension between Agnosticism and Anglicanism is justified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I found this a very comprehensive article, with maybe just slightly too many sections and occasional use of non Australian-English terms, occasionally too much abbreviation of academic institution names, occasionally very slightly colloquial tone, all very fixable and trivial issues. My comments are borderline pedantic. I found zero major issues with this article. CT55555(talk) 23:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking my feedback on board. I note a couple of errors in my comments (commonly things already being linked) and very mild suggestions not agreed with (that's fine by me, all were just suggestions). I am happy that most were accepted and for some to be rejected. CT55555(talk) 03:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

I found a few errors, which I have taken the liberty of correcting.[3] I am happy to discuss any of these changes.

I was a little shocked to see Florey credited with elucidating the structure of penicillin when it was Dorothy Hodgkin (who won a Nobel Prize for it [4]). The same error is repeated in the nomination statement at the top of this page!

It says that Florey was the leader of the team that did these things; Heatley handled production, Abraham and Chain the chemistry, Florey and Jennings the testing; Hodgkin was part of the Oxford team. Abraham, Baker, Chain, Florey, Holiday and Robinson published the chemical formula in 1942; Hodgkin used X-rays to determine its structure in 1949. I wrote about this in the History of Penicillin article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although certainly a collaborator, I am not convinced Hodgkin was part of Florey's research group (team). It was Chain that postulated the presence of the beta-lactam ring and it was Chain who suggested to Hodgkin that she have a go at elucidating penicillin's structure. Hodgkin was not answerable to Florey in the sense implied in the article. The article comes across as a tad to biased in Florey's favour in my view. Hodgkin was awarded the Nobel Prize for determining the structure, she didn't share it with Florey who got his “for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases”, shared with Fleming. Graham Beards (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are quite right; Hodgkin worked for the X-Ray Crystallography group. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of sentences (for now), which need some clarification:

Here "While the lysozyme research was successful, it was not fruitful, because while it was lethal to certain bacteria, these were not bacteria that caused illness, and were therefore of negligible concern to medicine." This is vague and possibly not true. What are the "certain bacteria"? Are they Gram-positive? And how do we know that these bacteria are non-pathogenic? Also doesn't "successful" and "fruitful" mean the same thing in this context?

The source says:

Meanwhile the research on lysozyme by Roberts and Maegraith — for which he had succeeded in getting a further grant of $1280 from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1936— had proved fruitful. They had succeeded in effecting a considerable degree of puri- fication and in 1937 E. P. Abraham— who was working with Robinson as a DPhil student— succeeded in crystallizing it: he was later to join Florey in the Sir William Dunn School of Path- logy. This provided an appropriate starting-point for Chain, who had completed his snake venom work; he was joined in 1937 by an American Rhodes Scholar, L. A. Epstein (later Falk), in an investigation of the nature and mode of action of lysozyme. They confirmed that it was indeed an enzyme and that its action was directed specifically against a polysaccharide in the cell wall of Micrococcus lysodeikticus and other lysozyme-sensitive organisms. To identify the polysaccharide it was necessary to grow substantial quantities of the bacteria in Winchester bottles— a technique in which the advice of Professor Gardner was helpful— and separate and fractionate the bacterial cells. With this material it was possible to show that the cell-wall component destroyed by lysozyme was a simple derivative of glucose-N-acetylglucosamine. The destruction of this by lysozyme accounted for the disintegration and lysis of the cells originally observed by Fleming. Today, when research techniques are so much more sensitive and versatile, this would not rank as a remarkable achievement but with the techniques available immediately before the last War it was unquestionably a brilliant success.

As things stood, however, it was something of a self-contained success; it did not immediately suggest a further line of fruitful investigation. Indirectly, none the less, it initiated new research which was to culminate in the development of penicillin as a chemotherapeutic agent in a class on its own. The distinctive feature of lysozyme was its unusual combination of two properties. On the one hand it was innocuous to human tissue; on the other, it was lethal to certain bacteria. Its disappointing feature was that the bacteria it destroyed were not those of practical significance in medicine.

— Williams, pp. 61-62
Our article on Micrococcus luteus says it is a "Gram-positive to Gram-variable, nonmotile, tetrad-arranging, pigmented, saprotrophic coccus bacterium in the family Micrococcaceae." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we say micrococcus and link to it instead of having "certain bacteria"? Something like ""While the lysozyme research was successful, it was not fruitful, because while it was lethal to micrococci these bacteria are not usually pathogenic." Graham Beards (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Re-worded along the lines suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is a recurring theme in the article; Florey was a scientist, who was interested in research for its own sake. Finding useful things was very much a byproduct of his work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here "Abraham and Chain discovered that some airborne bacteria that produced penicillinase, an enzyme that destroys penicillin." The term "penicillinase" is outdated, the enzyme is called "betalactamase".

Just following the sources, but penicillinase links to beta-lactamase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the author was uncertain of the nomenclature used when describing bacteria. There was a mixture of formal taxonomic names , e.g. "streptococcus" and informal common names e.g. "gonococcus". I think I caught them all in my edits, but they might creep back in. If it helps it should be either Streptococcus spp (formal) or just streptococci (informal), and Neisseria gonorrhoeae or just gonococci.

Thanks. I think this arose from multiple authors editing the article, but your are quite right about me being uncertain about the nomenclature, or I would have made it mode consistent. Your work is much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There might be more to come from me when I find time. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although my review has mainly focussed on the accuracy of the microbiology, I think this article is ready for promotion with regard to the other criteria. The nominator has done excellent and admirable work. Graham Beards (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments by Draken Bowser

[edit]

Hello. Just a few queries:

  • "He collaborated with biochemist Marjory Stephenson on his lysozyme project.." The use of "his" makes me think, as I'm reading it, that I should already have heard about this project.
    That's what you get for reading six books on Florey. Added a paragraph on lysozyme. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..much less dangerous amyl nitrite.." Could a more specific adjective be used here?
    If you have one. Had to deal with this at the Research School of Chemistry. Nasty awful stuff, responsible for many deaths, fires and explosions. Added a source on how nasty it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The erroneous impression given by Fleming that penicillin was a bactericidal enzyme led Chain to consider that it would be similar to lysozyme." While implied by both this sentence and its name, consider specifying that lysozyme is an enzyme at some point before this.
    The paragraph mentioned above should cover it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An inquiry: Robert P. Gaynes mentions that after Florey elected Heatley as his plus-one for the US: Chain never forgave Florey for leaving him behind, leading to a feud lasting years.[1] Which is not hard to imagine given that Heatly after meeting Chain had refused to work for him, instead electing to report directly to Florey.[2] But Gaynes does not detail the consequences of the quarrel. Was there any significance to this schism? Draken Bowser (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Florey took Heatley to the US with him because he wanted an expert on production, and Heatley was his team member for that. But to Chain penicillin was a joint project between the two of them, and Heatley was just a technician. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gaynes, Robert P. (2023). Germ theory: medical pioneers in infectious diseases (2nd ed.). Washington Hoboken, NJ: American society for microbiology & Wiley. p. 258. ISBN 978-1-68367-376-7.
  2. ^ Gaynes (2023) p. 256

I have nothing further. The article is comprehensive and seems thoroughly researched. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Reviewing this version, spot-check only upon request. It seems like all sources have the requisite information and formatting is consistent. The trove.nla.gov.au source seems to throw a lot of "forbidden" errors. Some sources seem to link PMC twice, first as an ID and second as a link from the article title; dunno that it's necessary. What is source #114 and #158? Is the link to Brett Mason correct? Is this review of Wilson 1976 a problem?

Not source-related, but File:Australian $50 note paper front.jpg does not seem to add a lot to the understanding of the article's topic and so might fail WP:NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very well. I have removed the image of the $50 note. Many people carried it around for years but never knew who the picture was of or what the surrounding images are about. Now I guess now they will never know. Without the image, the text should probably be deleted as well, as it is no longer intelligible to the reader.
  • I get no errors from the Trove links. (Runs checklinks) We have HTTP 302 status but they work and display on the checklinks page) fine.
  • I don't think the double-linking of PMCs is necessary either, but they are not my doing; they are automatically generated by the pmc card in the {{cite journal}} template.
  • Fn 114 is a citation to Macfarlane; fn 158 is a reference to the London Gazette. Is there a problem with them?
  • The link to Brett Mason is correct.
  • I don't see anything problematic about Sydney Selwyn's review. This article is about Florey, with the History of penicillin covered in that article, which unfortunately failed its GA review and has been permanently shelved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of the PMC links, I'd probably remove the url link from the citation templates. WRT the image, I think folks would probably look at Australian fifty-dollar note rather to find out who he is. WRT the review, it raises some questions about the reliability of Wilson 1976. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The are no url links in the citations in the article; the link generated by the template itself, and local consensus here is insufficient to remove it from a template used by millions of articles.
    The review of David Wilson's book does not question its reliability. It says that it:

    at last sets out the full story of the modern discovery and development of penicillin. It is attractively written - if we ignore uncritically enthusiastic statements about Pasteur which appear intermittently. But nothing is said about earlier discoveries of penicillin.

    The earlier discoveries are out of scope of this article, having nothing to do with Florey. Other reviews are positive:

    It has long been suspected that the accepted description of the discovery and therapeutic use of penicillin is not entirely accurate. Professor Ronald Hare's The birth of penicillin (London, 1970) and Professor Sir Ernst Chain's lecture of 1971 have helped to set the record straight and this book contributes further to the process. The author, who is a science writer and broadcaster, has collected together all the available data and presents what seems to be the most acceptable, detailed account so far available. He has carried out extensive research and presents his facts and conclusions in a lucid, undramatic style, with some documentation. The picture gradually clarifies but there are still problems the resolution of which will probably have to await the demise of all who were concerned with this remarkable venture.

    — Medical History, 1977, Vol.21 (4), p. 460

    Wilson does a first-rate job of picturing the personalities of Florey, Fleming, Chain and others who kept moving on and off the stage and distinguishing between the mythical and factual elements of the story. The time lag between the discovery and development of penicillin is examined carefully; Wilson explains the scientific atmosphere that militated against faster progress. The problems of manufacturing penicillin are especially well handled.

    — Library Journal, 1976, Vol.101, p. 1130
    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, this works then. I thought that the article links were as a "url" parameter, although it certainly surprises me that the templates themselves feel the need to link twice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Hawkeye7, have you finished addressing Jo-Jo's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have. All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, with usual caveats about my unfamiliarity with the topic and lack of spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking the time to review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, really enjoyed this article. I used to get Fleming and Florey and their roles mixed, probably the Fl alliteration. You've cured me!

That is not uncommon. Now that the influence of the UK on the English-speaking world has waned, fewer people have heard of Fleming. We have a whole suburb of Canberra named after Florey, but the residents don't know how his name is pronounced. I hope that the Wikipedia article will correct this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lede

  • post nom FRS - not requesting you to change but why doesn't that link to Fellow of the Royal Society?
    It should. I have corrected it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • after the task had been abandoned ten years before - ten years after the task had been abandoned -(just a bit strange with "after" followed by "before") (the "abandoned" relates to "Dreyer had been given a sample of the mould in 1930 for his work on bacteriophages. He had lost interest in penicillin..." not Fleming?)
    Re-worded. Made it clear that it was Fleming who abandoned work on penicillin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They developed techniques for growing, purifying and manufacturing the drug, and tested it for toxicity and efficacy on animals, and carried out the first clinical trials on people. - there are four "and"s in that sentence. Only suggestion, swap "and carried out " to 'then' carried out
    Deleted one of the "ands". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

Rhodes scholar

University of Cambridge

University of Sheffield

University of Oxford

Penicillin Development

North American supply

Clinical trials

North Africa

Soviet Union

Australia

  • but did not reach Australia until August 1944 - that's not a long time? and arrived in Australia
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was accorded a hero's welcome.[146][147][148] and was - remove full stop
    Replaced full stop with comma Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It ended with Blamey convinced that Florey - Did Florey actually suggest and convince? or just Blamey's idea? did he discuss with Florey?
    Blamey's pet project. Ginger Burston was involved. After seeing the effects of antibiotics and antimalarials, Blamey became convinced that medical knowledge would be an important factor in future conflicts, and Australia needed its own medical research institute. I don't know why he wanted it to be in Canberra, but that is part of his original proposal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • research institute in Canberra, - the capital Canberra
    Sigh. Oh very well. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was quickly approved, but Curtin became ill, and he died in July 1945 - remove he? Why "but", did that put kibosh on the approved proposal? Approved as in Curtin had only verbally agreed or was some paperwork, legislation, budget, etc "approved"
    More on that later. "he" is needed because without it we don't have the comma, and without it there is an ambiguity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

Later life

Australian National University

President of the Royal Society

Provost of Queens College, Oxford

Personal life

Honours and awards

  • "elected to both the United States National Academy of Sciences" and "a Foreign Associate of the American National Academy of Sciences in 1963" - these are two separate things in 1963?
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death

  • home at the provost's lodging - lodgings plural elsewhere
  • outspoken in his disbelief - nonbelief? "Florey was an agnostic" I can't see the refs but I can see the Williams quote provided ie "he was not aggressive in his disbelief." but then there's "Florey had been so outspoken in his disbelief"? Contradictory? Wouldn't someone "aggressive in his disbelief" be atheist not an agnostic?

    The screen is the work of Grinling Gibbons. As an agnostic, the chapel services meant nothing to Florey but, unlike some contemporary scientists, he was not aggressive in his disbelief.

    — Williams, p. 363

    A plaque in his honor is embedded in the wall by the door entering the Anglican church in Old Marston, across the street from the house he and Ethel built. The vestry refused to install it inside because Florey was so outspoken in his disbelief.

    — Lax, p. 260
    I'm going with Lax. (I recall what was said of Dirac: "There is no God, and Dirac is His prophet.") Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous honours and legacy

In film

images

add cats?

Notes

Misc

That's my lot. Let me know if any of my comments are confusing. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jenny ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hawkeye for tweaks and patient explanations. I have just made a few minor changes, hope OK.
In ANU section there are still two figures in "modern" pounds rather than A$, ie £100,000 (equivalent to £4,591,000 in 2021) and £240,000 (equivalent to £11,019,000 in 2021). Not sure if you missed them?
This is a sterling article! (I just hope, for your sake that Mr Nolan doesn't make a new movie about Florey - you deserve a medal for coping with the hundreds of "you've seen the movie, now play with all the related articles" consequences!)
Very happy to add my s'port. Thanks again... and ping Gog. JennyOz (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Howard_Florey/archive1&oldid=1170917657"