![]() | John Macleod (physiologist) was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 24, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed the "rumour" that MacLeod did not participate in the discovery of insulin and was on holiday when it occurred. John Waller's Fabulous Science describes the way Charles Best attempted to discount the contributions of the other scientists involved - Best and Banting only obtained good results once MacLeod started advising them on experimental technique, and the crucial use of alcohol in extracting insulin was entirely MacLeod's suggestion. -- Andrew Norman 17:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
There is also a short bio of MacLeod in The Canadian Encyclopedia that states "Contrary to Banting's and Best's later distorted accounts, MacLeod was an active, essential supervisor of a research effort that, by the spring of 1922, had resulted in the discovery of insulin." – panda ( talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi does anyone know how to change the spelling in the title? It should read "Rickard" not "Richard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecapitain32 ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I had been bold and moved this page to correct spelling of the gentleman's name as per previous comments and numerous other sources, including the Nobel biography, a memorial plaque in Toronto and the obituary in Exp Physiol. — Yerpo Eh? 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zad68 ( talk · contribs) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Starting review... Looks like an interesting scientist.
Zad
68
16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Finished first read-through. Without making a comment about the actual factual history as found in reliable sources, this biography reads like it is pushing a POV, namely something along the lines of "Although it's most commonly reported that Banting had the biggest role in the discovery of insulin, really Macleod's contributions are underappreciated, and besides Banting was a jerk and a liar." This may all be 100% true, but that's how it feels and it really should not for a GA article. I'm sure you've heard the saying "An article is written with NPOV when you can't tell where the author's sympathies lie," and that's not the case with this article, I feel the article author's POV. There's also some usual realtively easy to clean up grammar bits. Haven't looked through the sourcing yet but I see this article is using Rosenfeld 2002, which
Insulin#History doesn't use. Can I get your feedback on this?
Zad
68
16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Please see my comments below describing the reasons why I think there's more work and time needed than is normally allowed for during a GA review, and so I'm leaning toward not listing this as GA at this time.
Zad
68
21:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Not listing this article for GA at this time per the discussion below--generally due to concerns about GA criterion "stays focused on the topic".
Zad
68
17:03, 24 January 2013 (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. | Some issues to fix |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Some issues to fix |
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. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Seems like other areas of Macleod's life should be expanded |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Is there too much detail about the history of insulin?; biography section needs to be recast to be focused on Macleod |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The biography narrative sides with Macleod over Banting a little too obviously |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Talk page and article history quiet |
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. | Not listed for GA at this time |
Note -- the number in parentheses before each item corresponds with the numbering of the GA requirement listed in the GA Table above.
Zad
68
21:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Sources table
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In this table:
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John MacLeod (physiologist). 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) 07:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
He wasn't supposed to be credited because it's just his laboratory that was used while making experiments.
All he did was judged the experiments but wasn't really present when the discovery was made by Banting and Best. 2001:4453:39F:CF00:A865:9A:A533:1B79 ( talk) 10:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | John Macleod (physiologist) was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 24, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed the "rumour" that MacLeod did not participate in the discovery of insulin and was on holiday when it occurred. John Waller's Fabulous Science describes the way Charles Best attempted to discount the contributions of the other scientists involved - Best and Banting only obtained good results once MacLeod started advising them on experimental technique, and the crucial use of alcohol in extracting insulin was entirely MacLeod's suggestion. -- Andrew Norman 17:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
There is also a short bio of MacLeod in The Canadian Encyclopedia that states "Contrary to Banting's and Best's later distorted accounts, MacLeod was an active, essential supervisor of a research effort that, by the spring of 1922, had resulted in the discovery of insulin." – panda ( talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi does anyone know how to change the spelling in the title? It should read "Rickard" not "Richard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecapitain32 ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I had been bold and moved this page to correct spelling of the gentleman's name as per previous comments and numerous other sources, including the Nobel biography, a memorial plaque in Toronto and the obituary in Exp Physiol. — Yerpo Eh? 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Zad68 ( talk · contribs) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Starting review... Looks like an interesting scientist.
Zad
68
16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Finished first read-through. Without making a comment about the actual factual history as found in reliable sources, this biography reads like it is pushing a POV, namely something along the lines of "Although it's most commonly reported that Banting had the biggest role in the discovery of insulin, really Macleod's contributions are underappreciated, and besides Banting was a jerk and a liar." This may all be 100% true, but that's how it feels and it really should not for a GA article. I'm sure you've heard the saying "An article is written with NPOV when you can't tell where the author's sympathies lie," and that's not the case with this article, I feel the article author's POV. There's also some usual realtively easy to clean up grammar bits. Haven't looked through the sourcing yet but I see this article is using Rosenfeld 2002, which
Insulin#History doesn't use. Can I get your feedback on this?
Zad
68
16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Please see my comments below describing the reasons why I think there's more work and time needed than is normally allowed for during a GA review, and so I'm leaning toward not listing this as GA at this time.
Zad
68
21:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Not listing this article for GA at this time per the discussion below--generally due to concerns about GA criterion "stays focused on the topic".
Zad
68
17:03, 24 January 2013 (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. | Some issues to fix |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Some issues to fix |
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. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Seems like other areas of Macleod's life should be expanded |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Is there too much detail about the history of insulin?; biography section needs to be recast to be focused on Macleod |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The biography narrative sides with Macleod over Banting a little too obviously |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Talk page and article history quiet |
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. | Not listed for GA at this time |
Note -- the number in parentheses before each item corresponds with the numbering of the GA requirement listed in the GA Table above.
Zad
68
21:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Sources table
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In this table:
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John MacLeod (physiologist). 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) 07:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
He wasn't supposed to be credited because it's just his laboratory that was used while making experiments.
All he did was judged the experiments but wasn't really present when the discovery was made by Banting and Best. 2001:4453:39F:CF00:A865:9A:A533:1B79 ( talk) 10:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)