Talk:Ernest Rutherford/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. SilkTork (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer (the GA Bot doesn't notify nominators when I start a review because of this) - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting an independent copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.

Nominators and interested users are free to response however they wish - inserting responses directly under each point I make is probably the best way, but please do whatever suits you. The thing that can get problematic is if someone other than me ticks off my query points as done and/or crosses out my text. If you have done something, please say so under my query, but allow me to check and make the decision as to if it is done or not - that way I know what I have checked and what I haven't. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

Is it well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?
A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Article is stable. SilkTork (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference section. SilkTork (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig's script found no significant copyvio: [1], and spot checks only turned up basic information and quotes. SilkTork (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images have appropriate licenses and are pertinent to the topic. SilkTork (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Images - resolved

Some of the image licensing appears uncertain: Why does a 1892 image have a modern license? File:Ernest Rutherford 1892.jpg; same with the 1905 image: File:Ernest Rutherford 1905.jpg. The source links are no longer active so couldn't be checked. The Permissions on File:Sir Ernest Rutherford LCCN2014716719 - restoration1.jpg says: "This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required." File:IPT-plasma-jet.jpg has what appears to be some form of copyright statement across it. These images would benefit from being checked, and their licenses made more secure.SilkTork (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first image, I'm not sure how to change the licensing to the correct designation (public domain). I think I might not be able to since I am not the uploader.

The second image was a featured image and the licensing has likely already been verified.

Like you I suspect that the lead image is OK, however it is not clear, and the issue of licensing was not raised during the featured image discussion: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ernest Rutherford. The licensing from the Library of Congress of "no known copyright restrictions" is vague. Given the picture's age, it is almost impossible that the photographer is still alive, but some countries require an additional 70 years after the death of the author, which is possible. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be the photographer. He's long gone, lucky for us (deepest condolences). Doughbo (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a reverse image search, the third image appears to have originated here, but does not have a watermark in the source. It is likely that the watermark was added for use with Wikipedia by the user. I'm unsure how to verify whether the appropriate permissions were gathered. Doughbo (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Well, that appears to settle that the image is copyrighted as the page is copyrighted. SilkTork (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it from the article. I'm not sure how to request a Commons deletion. Here's the entry (so I don't lose it). Doughbo (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How pertinent are the images toward the end of the article? The stamp, the statue, the grave stone, the blue plaque, and the five title page images. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the images at the end of the article are not pointedly irrelevant per MOS, I understand the concern. MOS does not give many clear guidelines on image relevance, so I elected to compare the article to other GAs or FAs. Commemorative artworks and memorabilia appear to be commonplace and accepted as enriching towards the article content. See example.

I do think the five title page images could be done without. They are not really present in other GA examples and I will probably remove them, unless further discussion occurs. Doughbo (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed title pages Doughbo (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to get rid of the plaque and the stamp. Keeping the statue. Doughbo (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks more organised and professional with the removal of so many of those unnecessary images. Well done. I still have some quibbles - though these are not deal breakers, just observances to be discussed. We have three images of Rutherford, one after the other, in the first part of the article. All show the same profile, and he looks the same in each image, except for normal aging. As such, do we actually need three images to show us what he looked like? The second image in placed in Early life, but pushes into Scientific career and is placed opposite the lead infobox, and so squeezes the text. These are things that MOS guides against - MOS:LAYIM, MOS:IMAGELOC, MOS:SANDWICH. My feeling is that one of the three images should be removed, so we are left with the lead image, and one image from when he was younger so people can note that he had established his appearance early on, and didn't change it. That younger image would be better placed in the Scientific career section where there is more room, and aligned to the right as recommended by MOS. SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the third image and placed the second image in Scientific Career, right-aligned. Doughbo (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of the value of the image of Lord Rutherford's grave, and its size and shape is distracting - it pushes out of its section, and having two images of different shape in close proximity is awkward. SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Doughbo (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the image of the statue. However, it doesn't give much of a sense of its size or location. Indeed, it could be a giant statue overlooking some trees. There is another one of the statue, but it's a bit murky, so I've uploaded a cleaner one, cropped from the larger image: File:Brightwater Rutherford Monument 004 crop.jpg. What do you think? SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the angle and lighting on the image already present are a bit prettier. Some of the background structures are also comparatively unsightly and detract from the statue itself. I would prefer to keep the existing image. Doughbo (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not finished reading (just skimming though), so I may have more to say on the writing, however, at this point, I am noting short paragraphs and sections, which inhibit flow of reading, coupled with poorly presented information: "Ernest Rutherford was the son of James Rutherford, a farmer, and his wife Martha Thompson, originally from Hornchurch, Essex, England. James had emigrated to New Zealand from Perth, Scotland, "to raise a little flax and a lot of children". Ernest was born at Brightwater, near Nelson, New Zealand. His first name was mistakenly spelled 'Earnest' when his birth was registered. Rutherford's mother Martha Thompson was a schoolteacher." (this could be presented as "Ernest Rutherford was born at Brightwater, near Nelson, New Zealand, to James Rutherford, a farmer, and his wife Martha Thompson, a schoolteacher....") a presentation that reads like bullet points or notes toward an essay - such as the McGill years section with successive paragraphs starting "In 1903,"; "In 1903,"; "In 1904,"; "In 1904,". There are obscure sentences such as "Rutherford was accepted, which meant that in 1900 he could marry his fiancé of two years, Mary Georgina Newton (1876–1954)". The reason why the acceptance meant he could marry is left unstated, so the reader has to make an assumption. SilkTork (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun to make changes for readability, particularly in the first half of the article, keeping in mind your suggestions. Feel free to check the article history for a detailed account of my revisions. Doughbo (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished my initial round of changes for readability, added probably over a dozen citations, and removed others where necessary. Doughbo (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After looking again at the lead section, I think it does a poor job of summarizing and merely includes information which would read better within the biographical sections. I'll likely move over several of these statements and reword them in a more succinct way within the lead. Doughbo (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finished cleaning up the lead. Doughbo (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Focus. There are some items such as a section of the coat of arms, and a section on buildings named Rutherford, which appear undue. SilkTork (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sections are undue in the context of scientific achievement, yes, but to remove them might risk stepping on some toes. Rutherford was extremely involved in British institutions and these items appear to be of importance to several Wikiprojects which have fostered the article's development. ~~It's not uncommon to see these items displayed for members of the British gentry, particularly in Rutherford's era.~~

I am not personally invested in such topics but do believe they are important to certain communities and networks across the site. Doughbo (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the lower comments I did remove the coat of arms in particular. Another comment has been left regarding further miscellany. Doughbo (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

There are a good number of statements unsourced, and once such statement has been tagged. This is grounds for a quick fail, though I will finish the review to see how much work the article needs. SilkTork (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added two citations to the flagged paragraph. I will continue to research unsourced material and revise as needed. Doughbo (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs to comply with WP:LEAD and be an overview of the article. A rough rule of thumb is that all major sections should be summarised in the lead. And that the lead should not contain anything that is not detailed in the main body. Essentially, the lead is a mini article. It is a quick guide to all the essential information about Rutherford. If people want more, they can read the appropriate sections in the article, or the entire article if they wish (very few people read the entire article, most only read the lead and the section they are most interested in). A general rule of thumb is that there will be four paragraphs. The first paragraph gives the absolute essential information - name, dates, and why the person is notable. Second and third paragraphs of a biography generally give biographical details in chronological order alongside a summary of the most important developments in that person's life. The final paragraph generally sums up awards and achievements. Generally I pass the lead last of all because a lead may change during a GA review as the article changes in response to the requirements of the review. However, it's worth getting to work on the principles of the lead as early as possible. Get the shape right, and then it's only a matter of tinkering. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've coerced the lead to a four-paragraph structure as requested. I believe the only section not represented therein is "Early Life and Education," in which I did not find anything considerably notable. I've checked to be sure that all of his major accomplishments are summarized, but if you find anything missing, let me know. Doughbo (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on putting the lead into four paragraphs. At the moment I'm not seeing a relationship between the lead and the structure of the article. For example - the article has placed Rutherford's life into Cambridge years, McGill years, Manchester years, etc. How do these years relate to the info in the lead? If the term "Manchester years" is significant, I would expect Manchester to be mentioned in the lead - either that or name that section something more appropriate, or merge it with another section. I'm not really getting from the lead the sense of Rutherford's biography. "Rutherford's discoveries include the concept of radioactive half-life..." in the second paragraph is a summary statement I would expect either in the first or last paragraph, not as an introduction to what is commonly the biographical section. See Edward Wright (mathematician), Rod Steiger, Elvis Presley, J. Robert Oppenheimer, etc, as examples of setting out the lead. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the last paragraph of the lead it is common to include a summary of notable honours, achievements, legacy, etc. Material from Later years and honours could be used to help build that. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Items named in honour of Rutherford's life and work. How relevant/important is this section? Which is mostly unsourced anyway. SilkTork (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific entries definitely appear to be relevant, but could be folded into another section. The rest of the entries vary in relevance (lower: elementary schools, small landmarks; high: specific prizes and products).

Most of the "high" relevance entries have their own Wikipedia pages. Do you think it is appropriate to have their namesake article link to these pages? I think maybe not, but they don't strictly seem to be irrelevant either. I agree that it might be a good idea to pare them down for the sake of focus. Doughbo (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OOS affirms the idea that article contents should be very general, to avoid the loss of relevant information. All the information seems to be of "medium" relevance under WP:REL, however, just about every item already has or belongs to a separate page. IMO, the section is redundant. I'm going to remove it. Doughbo (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arms. A section on the coat of arms with no relevant information attached appears undue. I like the way it is done here: In 1908 Rutherford received a Nobel Prize for his work on the disintegration of elements. He was knighted in 1914, decorated with the Order of Merit in 1925 and made a Baron in 1931, choosing for his coat of arms a design that included a kiwi and a Māori warrior. I feel that the info on the arms could be appropriately summarised and placed in the Later years and honours section. He had those arms for only 6 years, and they are not the reason he is notable. SilkTork (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and consolidated. A shame, since it appears some care was put into that little lnfobox. Doughbo (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "the father of nuclear physics" is used in the lead and in the largely unsourced section Nuclear physics without a cite. SilkTork (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added citations to lead Doughbo (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He was awarded an MA in Mathematics and Physical Science from the Canterbury College in 1893 and received a BSc from the same institution in 1894." Would you check that. It would be unusual to be awarded a Masters degree before being awarded a Bachelor degree. And also unusual to be given an art degree for a science subject. SilkTork (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source, though old, provides more details: Rutherford By A. S. Eve. He acquired a complex B.A in Latin, English, Maths, etc in 1892. A year later he got an M.A. in Maths and Science. And then in his fifth year at Canterbury he got his B.Sc. So your statement is correct, but misses out his first degree. SilkTork (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found a better source which also lists his BSc. The article has been amended. Doughbo (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass/Hold/Fail

Wider reading will be needed to deal with broad coverage, original research, fair representation, etc. Meanwhile I'm putting the review on hold in order for the matters regarding appropriate sourcing, prose, and focus to be dealt with. The hold is for a nominal seven days, though I'm always happy to extend the hold as long as productive work is being done, and it appears the work can be done in a reasonable time. SilkTork (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing good work. Give me a ping when you feel the prose and lead have been tightened, and the sourcing has improved to GA level, and I'll resume the review. SilkTork (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing a fair number of short sections and short paragraphs, some containing only one sentence. I'm also still seeing bullet notes, rather than developed paragraphs - In 1903 - In 1903 - In 1904 - In 1904. If the paragraph is leading with "In 1903", one assumes that the information in that paragraph will be about what happened in that year - so why do we have a following paragraph which starts with the same year? In the section named McGill years, it may help to start with something like: "From 1898 to 1906 Rutherford was a professor of physics at McGill University in Montreal, Canada; a position found for him by Thomson who had agreed to swap Rutherford for another academic from McGill as his assistant. During his time at McGill he worked with Soddy on thorium, and with Owens he discovered the principle of half-life...." Having set up what the section is going to be about (his time at McGill, and the work and discoveries he made there), it will be easier to organise that section. Then in the article lead you can use a shortened version of the lead paragraph of that section - "From 1898 to 1906 Rutherford was a professor of physics at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, where he discovered the principle of half-life with Owens, and worked with Soddy on thorium...". Give me a ping when the article is more organised, and I'll do the background research needed to complete the review. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's my opinion that several discoveries, which might have been made in the same year, are better separated into their own paragraph than consolidated by timeframe. This is for clarity and distinction of thought. In this case, I see no problem in leading with the year as it provides an easily-referenced timeframe. I previously experimented with sentence structures stating the year later in the object and found that this negatively impacted readability.

I will work on building out or consolidating some stubby paragraphs.

Will also work on including more information in the lead. Doughbo (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section Scientific career is no longer subdivided by his various tenures. Headings are instead noted per his research areas and discoveries. Fortunately, this scale is quite consistent along a linear timeframe. I also think these titles are better for most readers since the historical focus on this individual will regard his discoveries higher than his institutional connections. Doughbo (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay on this. I have been busy with other stuff on and off Wiki. I intend to be fully engaged on this next week, and I'm looking forward to finishing off the review. SilkTork (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that. Doughbo (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article still needs a copyedit as prose needs tightening in order to assist presentation of information. If you don't feel able to copyedit yourself, then it may be time to ask for assistance.
There are sources, though citing needs tightening to reassure readers that information is accurate (move cites nearer to the statements they are supporting), and where possible secondary sources should replace tertiary sources. Tertiary sources (encyclopedias) are allowed, though those sources are getting their information from secondary sources, so it is worth looking for those secondary sources (which would provide greater detail).
The lead is still problematic. See my above comments on how to get the lead to follow the guidance in WP:Lead.
Though I feel the article is by and large neutral, there are some unsupported statements such as "Rutherford continued to make ground breaking discoveries long after receiving the Nobel prize in 1908" which feel like fancruft.
I'm not seeing evidence for original research - I'd prefer closer citation, and better quality sources, but checks on information in the article are supported by sources.
In my reading so far I've not noticed major areas in coverage.
My concerns remain the prose, the presentation of information, the lead, and secure citing. My recommendation is that the article is given a serious copyedit by one or more experienced editors, and that some further research is done in order to give backbone and depth to what is here. Research in specialist books on Rutherford rather than general encyclopaedias. I've looked back at the history of the article, and there are few authors who have really taken responsibility for it and developed it. And it is essentially the same now as it was back in 2011. However, it might be worth approaching User:Billyshiverstick, who has done some recent editing on the article, and User:Dirac66, User:Sbharris, and User:Chris55 who have made significant contributions over the years. It is also worth asking for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and at the WikiProjects listed on the talkpage. I am interested in the topic and am willing to help out, though my time is limited right now so I may not be able to do much in a short space of time. Given the slow development so far, it might well be best to fail this GAN, develop the article over the next few months (and I'll help), and then resubmit. However, I'm also prepared to keep the review open if progress is being made. SilkTork (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled across this article and I agree this should be heavily revised and resubmitted. I don't see a single biography on Rutherford cited more than once... an instant fail alone in that regard. The reliance on primary sources and The Nobel Prize website (??) is equally as revealing. Aza24 (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've done my best for this article, but you're right that I lack the experience necessary to fit the article to some of the finer criteria. Let's contact some more experienced copyeditors and proceed with another GA review later on, as you suggested. I'll continue to pitch in where I can, but will need others with the time and resources to look into specialist books. Doughbo (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll close this review, and give some help with working on the article toward a future GAN. SilkTork (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.