| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
Please see comments below. If all of them can be adequately addressed, then I will change this section to "pass." I also went through and did made several minor copy edits myself. Everything has been addressed.
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
There is one reference in the lead section. Some editors may not go for that. Also, it is duplicated word for word in the body. I think the quote (and hence the reference) in the lead can go.
Regarding the Caltech section (and the reason why I marked this section as "no" for now: I agree with the previous reviewer that this section is more than just Caltech, even if he remained on the Caltech faculty that entire period (but I don't think that is the case). I would retitle the section "Later career" or something similar. Caltech in the section heading should be formalized, but if you take my previous suggestion, that won't be an issue anyway. Everything has been addressed, although the quote in the lead may have to go if this shows up at FAC.
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
All sources seem current and are verified. Corrected one dead link.
|
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
Sources are varied and reliable.
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
Everything is referenced. Please see my comment about about a hidden sentence in the Caltech section below.
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
No copyright violations were found.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
The article touches on every major area.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
Stays on topic and detail is consistent throughout, with extra detail added where necessary to build a complete picture of his life.
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
Seems fine.
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
Article is stable and few edits have been made since the nomination.
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
Image is in the public domain.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
This won't impact the GAN, but is there a better quality/higher resolution photo of him somewhere? McKibbin's photo on her article looks just fine. Eventually, additional images would be nice as well.
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
All issues were addressed, and in a timely manner.
|
.jpg){kind=small}
