This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Tab Rasmussen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
David Tab Rasmussen was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 19, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
biological anthropologist
David Tab Rasmussen enjoyed working in the
Neotropics because it allowed him to study both
primates and
birds, his two favorite subjects? |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although there is no conflict of interest (COI) for me personally, I have consulted Tab's family for clarifications and a review of the article. Some edits I have been asked to make on their behalf. They do not feel that ambiguous statements about his cause of death or his marital history are of any relevance to the article, so that information was removed (but is still available in the archived references). Otherwise I have adhered to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of my ability. – Maky « talk » 23:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Animalparty ( talk · contribs) 03:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this one.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 03:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is very close to GA. The main areas for improvement regard creating a tone that reads slightly less like an obituary/tribute and more like an impartial encyclopedia article. Many of the sources, and the most frequently cited, are obituaries written by colleagues/affiliated sources (I'm assuming the anonymous obituaries were composed by family or friends). Thus, while they may be reliable sources, they are likely non-neutral (a subtle
bias in sources). This doesn't mean the sources can't or shouldn't be used, but a bit of caution is needed to extract factual information without unduly carrying over the tone.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 21:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for leaving this unresolved. As I'm still somewhat a novice to GA reviews, I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this before closing it upright. I think it is very close, but the tone seems a bit too non-neutral to me, but I would like a second review.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Over the weekend, I'll see what I can do about the WP:OVERCITE issue. I did somewhat reduce the WP:OVERLINK issue, but more needs to be done. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 09:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Re disagreement on red linking: one redlinks to encourage article creation of a "notable" topic, but I found little in a Google search to lead me to believe that a separate article on the individual species would ever stand alone rather than being merged into a genus-level article. However, differences of opinion are an intrinsic part of what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've been busy! Anyhow, I think that I've probably done enough on the overcite and overlink issues for now. Although the various obituaries largely drew from a common source, they each included distinct points, so it took a fair amount of careful reading to determine which one of a list would be the preferred source for the immediately preceding text. I'm not sure that I want to work on any grammar/copyedit issues, which anyway are pretty few. Maky has been watching both of us work. Maybe, with the tedious stuff out of the way, he can be induced to take care of any remaining minor issues? Thanks for your hard work on this article and the accompanying stubs for Widanelfarasia and Chipetaia, by the way! Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 02:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Maky: do you by any chance have time to come back to work a bit on this article? I've taken care of a lot of the boring/repetitive stuff and if you could be induced to take care of the few remaining minor issues, we can push this to QA. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 18:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the concern that there's too much in this article that makes it read like an obituary. The heavy reliance on obituaries rather than reliable sources that say why he is notable is also concerning. Here are some specific things that popped out at me:
@ Maky and Stigmatella aurantiaca: Is there interest in continuing to work on this? delldot ∇. 23:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Tab Rasmussen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
David Tab Rasmussen was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 19, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
biological anthropologist
David Tab Rasmussen enjoyed working in the
Neotropics because it allowed him to study both
primates and
birds, his two favorite subjects? |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although there is no conflict of interest (COI) for me personally, I have consulted Tab's family for clarifications and a review of the article. Some edits I have been asked to make on their behalf. They do not feel that ambiguous statements about his cause of death or his marital history are of any relevance to the article, so that information was removed (but is still available in the archived references). Otherwise I have adhered to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of my ability. – Maky « talk » 23:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Animalparty ( talk · contribs) 03:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this one.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 03:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is very close to GA. The main areas for improvement regard creating a tone that reads slightly less like an obituary/tribute and more like an impartial encyclopedia article. Many of the sources, and the most frequently cited, are obituaries written by colleagues/affiliated sources (I'm assuming the anonymous obituaries were composed by family or friends). Thus, while they may be reliable sources, they are likely non-neutral (a subtle
bias in sources). This doesn't mean the sources can't or shouldn't be used, but a bit of caution is needed to extract factual information without unduly carrying over the tone.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 21:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for leaving this unresolved. As I'm still somewhat a novice to GA reviews, I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this before closing it upright. I think it is very close, but the tone seems a bit too non-neutral to me, but I would like a second review.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Over the weekend, I'll see what I can do about the WP:OVERCITE issue. I did somewhat reduce the WP:OVERLINK issue, but more needs to be done. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 09:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Re disagreement on red linking: one redlinks to encourage article creation of a "notable" topic, but I found little in a Google search to lead me to believe that a separate article on the individual species would ever stand alone rather than being merged into a genus-level article. However, differences of opinion are an intrinsic part of what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've been busy! Anyhow, I think that I've probably done enough on the overcite and overlink issues for now. Although the various obituaries largely drew from a common source, they each included distinct points, so it took a fair amount of careful reading to determine which one of a list would be the preferred source for the immediately preceding text. I'm not sure that I want to work on any grammar/copyedit issues, which anyway are pretty few. Maky has been watching both of us work. Maybe, with the tedious stuff out of the way, he can be induced to take care of any remaining minor issues? Thanks for your hard work on this article and the accompanying stubs for Widanelfarasia and Chipetaia, by the way! Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 02:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Maky: do you by any chance have time to come back to work a bit on this article? I've taken care of a lot of the boring/repetitive stuff and if you could be induced to take care of the few remaining minor issues, we can push this to QA. Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 18:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the concern that there's too much in this article that makes it read like an obituary. The heavy reliance on obituaries rather than reliable sources that say why he is notable is also concerning. Here are some specific things that popped out at me:
@ Maky and Stigmatella aurantiaca: Is there interest in continuing to work on this? delldot ∇. 23:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)