Esther Lederberg has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 5, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed some over-rhetorical language, and some general material on women's role in science that, though justified, are not directly relevant to her biography. This article is being discussed further at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. DGG ( talk) 09:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
When not using the full name in a formal context, her name, according to convention for academic is Lederberg or E. Lederberg when necessary to avoid confusion. It is not Esther, which would strike many people as sexist condescension. DGG ( talk) 18:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- User:CatPath has been making a lot of changes to the Esther Lederberg article, at least some of which are around Lederberg's contested contributions to various research otherwise attributed to Joshua Lederberg and others. See diff from Sept 11 to today, Oct 1. I didn't write much of the content, so I can't really assess the validity of the changes or the original material. But, in my capacity as a neutral admin who likes to keep an eye out on possible controversies in scientist biographies, I noticed these changes. Because a lot of the changes revolve around issues of allegedly uncredited work or contributions to other projects, and this page in particular has been subject of previous conflict of interest concerns, I thought it would be useful for future discussions to have some documentation here on the talk page about what is happening and why. If a discussion is needed to be sure the article is fully neutral in its presentation of conflicts, then we should have one. So, specifically, I'm hoping that CatPath could provide a cogent summary of the state of the article prior to the beginning of her/his edits (Sept. 10), and the general effect of the various edits, and I've posted a note to CatPath's user talk page about it. Thanks. -- Lquilter ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
"However, Joshua Lederberg himself failed to mention Esther Lederberg's name in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech of 1958."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Esther Lederberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer ( talk · contribs) 04:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
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. | The prose is as crisp and clear as any article I’ve read. No spelling or grammar issues, no words to watch. Excellent work. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The structure is excellent. However:
| |
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. | ||
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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I must preface this by noting I am not a subject matter or domain expert in the field the subject worked in. In fact, I am a total ignoramus in many ways. I did read a few articles online to check her history, and
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | NPOV issues were discussed in 2012, and cleared up with a decent explanation of what the issues had been. However... I am a bit concerned that there is no discussion of the fact that she was seen as a "Laureate's wife", even though her work was integral and through the work of her husband, Beadle and Tatum. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
I think that's all I have. I made a few minor edits myself. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
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. | Good work here. I made a final pass for some light copyediting. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I edited a small part of the lead to reduce the redundancy, but even the previous version met the relevant guideline. | |
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | Spot checks of references did not turn up any issues. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | The only "hits" from Earwig's tool resulted from extremely common phrases, specific job titles, and the limited use of direct quotes. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good job incorporating the feedback from the initial reviewer here. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | One image; has appropriate license information. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Good work. Thanks to the nominator for seeing this process through and for working well with both reviewers. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC) |
Esther Lederberg has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 5, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed some over-rhetorical language, and some general material on women's role in science that, though justified, are not directly relevant to her biography. This article is being discussed further at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. DGG ( talk) 09:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
When not using the full name in a formal context, her name, according to convention for academic is Lederberg or E. Lederberg when necessary to avoid confusion. It is not Esther, which would strike many people as sexist condescension. DGG ( talk) 18:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- User:CatPath has been making a lot of changes to the Esther Lederberg article, at least some of which are around Lederberg's contested contributions to various research otherwise attributed to Joshua Lederberg and others. See diff from Sept 11 to today, Oct 1. I didn't write much of the content, so I can't really assess the validity of the changes or the original material. But, in my capacity as a neutral admin who likes to keep an eye out on possible controversies in scientist biographies, I noticed these changes. Because a lot of the changes revolve around issues of allegedly uncredited work or contributions to other projects, and this page in particular has been subject of previous conflict of interest concerns, I thought it would be useful for future discussions to have some documentation here on the talk page about what is happening and why. If a discussion is needed to be sure the article is fully neutral in its presentation of conflicts, then we should have one. So, specifically, I'm hoping that CatPath could provide a cogent summary of the state of the article prior to the beginning of her/his edits (Sept. 10), and the general effect of the various edits, and I've posted a note to CatPath's user talk page about it. Thanks. -- Lquilter ( talk) 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
"However, Joshua Lederberg himself failed to mention Esther Lederberg's name in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech of 1958."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Esther Lederberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer ( talk · contribs) 04:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
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. | The prose is as crisp and clear as any article I’ve read. No spelling or grammar issues, no words to watch. Excellent work. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The structure is excellent. However:
| |
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. | ||
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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I must preface this by noting I am not a subject matter or domain expert in the field the subject worked in. In fact, I am a total ignoramus in many ways. I did read a few articles online to check her history, and
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | NPOV issues were discussed in 2012, and cleared up with a decent explanation of what the issues had been. However... I am a bit concerned that there is no discussion of the fact that she was seen as a "Laureate's wife", even though her work was integral and through the work of her husband, Beadle and Tatum. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
I think that's all I have. I made a few minor edits myself. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
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. | Good work here. I made a final pass for some light copyediting. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I edited a small part of the lead to reduce the redundancy, but even the previous version met the relevant guideline. | |
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | Spot checks of references did not turn up any issues. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | The only "hits" from Earwig's tool resulted from extremely common phrases, specific job titles, and the limited use of direct quotes. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good job incorporating the feedback from the initial reviewer here. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | One image; has appropriate license information. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Good work. Thanks to the nominator for seeing this process through and for working well with both reviewers. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 23:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC) |