Talk:Brian Josephson/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC) I will be happy to review this good-looking article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2014 (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. | A very readable article |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | lead: is fine (but probably doesn't really need the refs). Layout: ok; weasel: no sign. fiction: n/a; lists: n/a |
| 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. | Satisfactorily verifiable. |
|
|
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). | All claims are cited. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Claims properly cited throughout. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | A concise, summary style article. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Very well focused. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Fair and even-handed throughout. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Recent changes basically indicate steady small-scale improvements. |
| 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. | All images from Commons |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | but see minor comment below on one image. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | I'm satisfied this article has easily reached the level required for GA. I see that fine details are being checked and polished; and the style of some citations may need to be harmonised for FA, but the GA criteria have now been met. |
A few small comments
[edit]"Unusually, along with Josephson, neither Esaki nor Giaever held professorships at the time of the award." Maybe we could just say that none of the three winners had been profs, if that's what is meant.
- It's nice to find some images but perhaps the one of the current Cavendish site needs to be better justified in its caption.
- I've added a few wikilinks.
A few more might be in order as with "Jungian psychoanalysts" and "cosmic wormholes" for instance.Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
"Why a crocodile?" is now a dead link. Would be good to have this fixed.
Brian Josephson and Jessica Utts, "Do you believe in psychic phenomena? Are they likely to be able to explain consciousness?", Times Higher Education, 8 April 1996. --- not sure author list is correct here; Utts may be first, and Blackmore may or may not be relevant (perhaps the web version has been changed?).
"New Switch is Key to Supercomputer" is already tagged as a dead link: not a problem for GA.
- Brian Sullivan, "Physics is Often a Young Man's Game", Associated Press, 17 December 1969. --- should perhaps be cited to an actual newspaper. Not a problem for GA.
"Cambridge Theory of Condensed Matter group" leads to list of all Cavendish lab group members.
"George (New Scientist) 2006, p. 56." is a dead link. Needs fixed as untraceable as it stands. Occurs 3 times.
- "Brian D. Josephson", Lundqvist 1992. This calls out a short ref which is not in the bibliography but embedded in ref 27, not very nice. Would be best fixed.
In sum, this is a fine article and I'm almost ready to pass it once these small items are addressed. There are a couple that don't matter for GA but will need tidying before this goes to FA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Josephson has asked for the article to mention he has been invited to give lectures. Invited lectures at notable societies might be listed in an 'Awards and distinctions' section. For example: [1] [2] Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Chiswick Chap, thanks for the thorough review. I'll start working on the fixes today. I'll address the issue of the quote and the lectures that Josephson has raised too, but I'll drop a note about those on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi again,
- I've fixed the professorships sentence,
- removed the current Cavendish image (I couldn't think of a way to justify it; it was there only to avoid an all-text section),
- fixed the crocodile link,
- fixed the order of names in the THE article (no idea why Susan Blackmore is mentioned),
- removed "New Switch is Key to Supercomputer" dead link,
- fixed "Cambridge Theory of Condensed Matter group" link
- the George (New Scientist) 2006 link isn't dead for me, and it's referenced in full on first mention,
- fixed Lundqvist 1992.
I'm still discussing a couple of points with Josephson on the talk page, so I'll update you when that's done. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I'm happy that the GA criteria have been met. Consider further updates as progress towards FA, which I wish you all the best for. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's much appreciated, and thanks again for your careful review. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I'm happy that the GA criteria have been met. Consider further updates as progress towards FA, which I wish you all the best for. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)