Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Joseph Grinnell

Joseph Grinnell

I wish to work on this article to good article status. I also have questions, such as: is information on the last California grizzly bear relevant to Grinnell? Also, global warming issues, which I carefully avoided any bias on in the article (hopefully). Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll make a partial review of this article, but I'm not good at doing that, this being the second time I've seriously reviewed an article. For now, I'll just give my general impressions. This article is probably not yet entirely complete, and finding as many sources as possible would be a good idea. This article rather badly needs serious copyediting, by somebody good at this. The references seem reliable, though they are not formatted, there is a bit too much of citing autobiographical content, and a lack of proper inline citations. I think the "Notes" section should be changed to "References", and the "References and Further reading" to something like "Cited texts" or "Literature cited", to reflect what they contain. Works in the "Cited texts" or whatever section should be referred to with just the author(s), year, and page no., so "Stein, Barbara R. On Her Own Terms University of California Press 2001 p 76-77" becomes "Stein, 2001, pp. 76–77". Citation templates or otherwise properly formatted references should be added. I do think the Grinnell Resurvey Project etc. is off topic. It should probably be moved elsewhere (ie, an article on Yosemite, one on the university, or a new article), and given a mention in the sections on Grinnel's research. If you want to make this a Good Article, this is a good start, but you have a long way to go. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Innotata for taking the time to review and comment. I'll work on the points outlined. One comment I have is about the statement "a lack of proper inline citations". This type is a new Wikipedia footnote style called

list-defined references which makes editing in the edit window much cleaner, no long footnote text within the article to wade through. Marcia Wright (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to references: I meant that many statements lack citations. I also have shortened the citations to works in the literature cited list: see this diff. I suggest you use citation templates {{cite book}} and the like or otherwise format references consistently. I'll take a look at the writing later. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made I see what you mean regarding book citations. That is much better. I could not bring myself to remove the Grinnell resurvey information, I think it is relevant - if he had not done the original faunal aurvey, MVZ would not have the data to compare with. Some of the resurvey results are being referenced in arguments on global warming. I did tighten up and move it to a subsection under "Survey of California fauna". Marcia Wright (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any statements that need a citation have one, and all paragraphs are referenced with footnotes.Marcia Wright (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the section "Editor of The Condor" and another section is in the works,it will be either "Later years" or "Conservation" with information on: National Park Service policy influence by Grinnell, Pt Lobos SR information, and a list in prose form of conservation related writings by Grinnell. Also, maybe information on Hastings Natural Reserve in Carmel Valley, CA, (not decided though).Marcia Wright (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not looking at this for a while. Yes, if Hastings Natural Reserve is directly related to Grinnel, it should be mentioned. I'll see when I can do a review. —innotata 16:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked the article over, and I think it seems it is too incomplete for GA, and that it is premature to comment on it here. The referencing looks good, though I expect there's more published about Grinnell and formatting would be good. I'll make little fixes myself, and point out problems, now. —innotata 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The writing is not good, though there are no really unclear statements. It seems unnecessary to list bird species in the "First Alaska trip" section, and things like the characterisation of Saint Lazaria Island today are off topic. —innotata 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Removed names of birds and removed description of island from graph.

Nit-picks:

The last sentence of the first paragraph at "early years" needs to be rephrased.
- Removed sentence referring to Red Cloud, does not move the story forward.

Why is Gold Hunting in Alaska called a booklet? Wasn't it a book?
- Changed booklet to book.

Why call Grinnell's letter's "historic"? —innotata 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed historic from sentence.

Response Thank you, and no apology needed, we are all volunteers here. I've made all the changes you pointed out. I've added the section "Conservation" which includes Hastings Reserve information. *note* My own self-criticism says there may be a POV issue with the statement "last California wolverine killed ...", I could have said "'trapped" Would like to know your take on it. I will also remove the current paragraph describing Point Lobos State Park, like St Lazaria Island, it is not relevant. Cheers Marcia Wright (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make too much of the issue of POV. That species are endangered by human activities, or that climate change exists is undeniable, and stating this or taking it for granted is correct (see WP:UNDUE) Of course, this is off topic, and should not be much of a problem here. —innotata 18:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question I've read WP:UNDUE and if I'm understanding this correctly, the information on the last wolverine killed is off topic. Or do you mean the whole graph regarding wolverines? I received a comment the article was too "pro Grinnell" , so my goal is to balance the article more. I haven't been able to find any opposing views on him, except Annie M.Alexander's letter stating him to be "sexist" (she was asking him to find a suitable female companion for the Alaska expedition.) That information is from On Her Own Terms by Barbara Stein. Since the whole wolverine is located at the museum, can I suggest/juxtapose that the purchasing from trappers for the museum's collections created a market to take animals, including rare species?

As for the article being too "pro-Grinnell", that seems to be a strange complaint. Where is this comment? Most scientists and naturalists have comparatively little to be criticised for. I think the comment about him being called "sexist" should be included, but it is not important. Only add anything about Grinnell's activities encouraging hunting if you can find a source that states this. —innotata 16:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer's closing comments Forgot about this again. The article is looking better, and it certainly is b-class, if it is not close to GA class. One place to find copyeditors is Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting. I've never needed to look there, since other project editors have usually helped. I think you ought to look at good and featured articles of biologists to see what this article should be like (the only ornithologists, I think, are Georg Forster and Pamela C. Rasmussen). —innotata 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]