Talk:Golding Bird/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a persistent illness which weakens my stamina and concentration, I cannot continue this review, and have asked at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Please take over Talk:Golding Bird/GA1 for another reviewer to take over. Spinningspark, I'm sorry for the delay this will cause. --Philcha (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take over the review soon, though it'll be a few days since, as noted, it's a fairly long article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Wizardman. --Philcha (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mark Y comments when I think they're resolved, highlight N any that are unresolved when most others are done, and strike out any of comments that I later decide are mistaken. I'll sign each of my comments, so we can see who said what - please do the same.

I'll mark the review {{inuse}} when I'm working on it, as edit conflicts are frustrating. If you think I've forgotten to remove {{inuse}}, please leave a message at my Talk page. Please free to use {{inuse}} with your own signature when you're working.

I'll read the article through first, then give comments. --Philcha (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God, what would Bird have done if he'd lived another 20 years! --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Philcha. I am quite pressed for time this week but I will try to work through most of this on Sunday, if not sooner. Spinning Spark 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

No "Legacy" section, describing Bird's influence after his death? (apart from Elements of Natural Philosophy, continued by Brooke). For example, see Augustin Pyramus de Candolle. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True there is no legacy section; is there a requirement for one? Although not in a specific section, there is extensive coverage of his legacy throughout the article. You have already mentioned Elements in this category; even more so is Urinary Deposits which was the reference work on the subject for many years. The flexible stethoscope is also covered - this of course is now the very badge of rank of a doctor. And perhaps his most important legacy is what he did for electrotherapy, which is covered in great detail, even the central theme of the article. Spinning Spark 12:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Legacy" is later authors' comments about Bird's achievements and his influence on later researchers - as I said to another reviewee, "his (another scientist's) soul goes marching on." In Bird's case I started with search string "golding bird" urology (searched only enough to see that there was something at all). A lot of the relevant sources on Google Books give no information directly but one gave the date of the last edition of Bird's book on urology (revised by Birkett after Bird's death). While many articles are either contemporaneous or behind paywalls, Medical Chemists and the Origins of Clinical Chemistry in Britain (circa 1750–1850) (2004) looks on the money. You need to be determined, resourceful and cunning - for example sometimes the full content of an article may be behind a paywall but the abstract gives enough, and in Google Books sometimes I've found the key sentence or 2 from the main page of Google Books and then just used the inner page for the bibliographical details. Then you start again with a search string "golding bird" X for some other aspect of Bird's - and also look for synonyms. Etc. --Philcha (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  That's a good resource, thanks, pity I did not find it earlier. However, I can't quite see where this is going. A brief read through gives the impression that there is not much (or nothing) there that is not already in the article - not surprising as Coley is already one of the sources with an article specifically about Bird. Spinning Spark 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any mainly medical work rather than "Collateral sciences"? Even Elements of Natural Philosophy was, per the title, about physics and chemistry as applied to medicine. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond doubt Bird's lasting fame is through his work in the sciences. He was, of course, a working doctor and his treatment of patients is mentioned here and there through the article. His time in charge of the children's ward at Guy's led to a series of papers on children's diseases which are mentioned in the article but I did not find anything especially exciting to write about there. He became a recognised expert in urinary/kidney diseases and doubtless many of his patients at his practice were there for that reason. However, his legacy here is through his investigation of the chemistry of these diseases and the article rightly concentrates on this aspect (although doubtless, a trained chemist would make a better job of it than I have). Spinning Spark 12:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- King's College London Archives Services - Summary Guide - Bird, Golding (1814-1854) (cited already) notes "Case of Internal Strangulation of Intestine relieved by operation" (Golding Bird and John Hilton; 1847), i.e. surgery. --Philcha (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The paper is already listed under Bird's publications. Other than that, what is it you want the article to say about it? It was not Bird that actually performed the surgery, that was Hilton's job - Bird was not a surgeon. Although the operation is said to be the first of its kind and is deemed a success by Bird and Hilton, it was not so much of a success that the patient actually lived. Spinning Spark 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that, I feel there's too much detail on the construction of Bird's devices, see WP:MANUAL, and some would be better in articles about "History of device X". Since you have a lot of material and citations, I suggest you save the current article in a subpage of your User page before changing the article - and "hide" the images in the subpage by [[:File ...]] or HTML comments, so that some bot doesn't remove them. Then I suggest that you start each subsection or para with the advantages and disadvantages of each device or technique for patients and practitioners. I hope that will make clear what are the most relevant of the details. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the discussion of interrupters is going a little too far. I didn't think Bird's interrupter really deserved its own standalone article and there is not already a Wikipedia article on interrupters to put it in. But there should be. I think the best solution here is to start an article, move most of the Bird material there and mark the article as incomplete (which it certainly will be). Spinning Spark 12:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

Life and career

"on 9 December 1814", please. Similar for other dates when needed. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 22:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y "(also named Golding Bird)"? --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 22:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -Philcha (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"~~In character he~~The son was precocious and ambitious"? --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "In character the son was precocious and ambitious". Don't see anything wrong with "in character", the sentence is bare and stilted without it. Spinning Spark 22:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y Re "He was educated at a private school in London from the age of twelve, but appears to have been far in advance of his teachers, giving lectures himself in chemistry and botany to his fellow pupils. The school seems to have been interested only in delivering a classical education," how about e.g. "Then from the age of twelve he was educated at a private school in London, which appeared interested only in giving a classical education. Bird, who seems to have been far ahead of his teachers, gave lectures in chemistry and botany to his fellow pupils." ~~Note my wikilink for "classical".~~ --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "From the age of twelve he was educated at a private school in London, which was not very interested in science and gave only a classical education. Bird, who seems to have been far ahead of his teachers in this respect, gave lectures in chemistry and botany to his fellow pupils." Classical education is already linked in the previous sentence. Spinning Spark 22:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Classical education is already linked. --Philcha (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "... gave only a classical education. Bird, who seems to have been far ahead of his teachers in this respect, gave lectures ...", "in this respect" is ambiguous - it may imply that Bird was far ahead in classics, while the sense of the passage is (I think) that he was ahead in science. --Philcha (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, he was far ahead in all respects: some of the sources talk very disparagingly of the school, but changed to "...far ahead of his teachers in ~~this respect~~ science..." Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y I'd say, "HeGolding Bird served his ..." to avoid ambiguity with Frederic. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y Please w-link apprenticeship - like "classical", it's become ancient history. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but not so much ancient history, apprenticeships are making a comeback nowadays. Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y Rather than "Apothecaries' Hall" (? a place), I'd prefer " the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London", which is clearly an organisation and has a nice olde-time ring. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked that as a parenthetical: the term "Apothecaries' Hall" is used later in the article so needs to still be here. It is being used in the same sense that "City Hall" is used to mean a local government or "Westminster" is used to mean the national government. The phrase is used this way by the sources. Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The para "He served his apprenticeship with the ... worked on breast disease as an assistant to Sir Astley Cooper" is disjointed and confusing. How about fixing the chronology: got apprenticeship; medical student at Guy's in 1832; influenced by Thomas Addison; licensed to practise as an apothecary without examination due to the reputation he had gained as a student at Guy's. Also, was "worked on breast disease as an assistant to Sir Astley Cooper" at the same time as the apprenticeship to the apothecary. Depending on this, it may be best before the apothecary licence. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the Astley Cooper collaboration to the end and added dates which puts this in nearer chronological order. The collaboration with Astley Cooper came after Bird's graduation but before his permanent appointment at Guy's as assistant physician. Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much clearer. But you simply moved "Also at Guy's, he worked on breast disease as an assistant to Sir Astley Cooper around 1839 to 1840." In the new place, "Also at Guy's" is clumsy as it no longer immediately follows "influenced by Thomas Addison who recognised his talents early on." How about e.g. "Around 1839 to 1840 he worked on breast disease at Guy's with ..."? --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done, but I've kept "as an assistant" as I don't want to overstate the significance of this work. Spinning Spark 22:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y The first use of "Guy's" should be in full and w-linked - Guy's Hospital; there are many other "Guy's", trying the Search box. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It already is - first para of the lede. Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y What's the chronology of "He became a Fellow of the Senior Physical Society early on (for which a thesis was required); he received prizes for medicine, obstetrics, and ophthalmic surgery at Guy's and the silver medal for botany at Apothecaries' Hall"? --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From memory, the sources said something like he became a member of the Senior Society before he was actually a Senior. Presumably this means his first year at Guy's, but from memory I don't think any source actually specified a date (I would almost certainly have put it in if they had). Also from memory, I don't think I read any source that gave dates for the other awards. Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust you on the (non-)dates, as you're exact whenever possible. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In "No residence or examination was required by St Andrews, Bird's degree was obtained through the practice of the time of submitting testimonials from qualified colleagues": for MD or MA or both; the passive voice should usually be converted to active voice; the comma splice is poor writing - inserting "and" would be a quick fix, but there may be better ways, depending on my question "MD or MA or both". --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar fixed (I think). The testimonials were for the MD. The situation with the MA, I believe, is that it is awarded automatically after a certain period of time - that is, if you pay the fees and no one complains you are using your position for mass murder or something. Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the difficulty at "Bird graduated from the University of St Andrews with an MD ... from qualified colleagues" is that the content is a little more than 2 sentences' worth but not enough for 3. And you now have a semicolon splice. How about e.g. "As St Andrews required no residence or examination for the MD, Bird obtained his degree by ..., which was the practice of the time." As a bonus, this would convert to active voice. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. By the way, I don't see the semicolon splice - it is a colon and I thought that was allowed (damned stupid pedantic rule either way). Spinning Spark 22:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y You could avoid the parentheses "(he was 23 at this point)" by moving the clause earlier in the sentence, e.g. "Once qualified in 1838, at the age of 23, he entered ..." --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y " ~~However, that~~In the same year he became physician ..."? --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you like "however"? The sources are implying that going to the Finsbury Dispensary turned his career around and started to make him a success. Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y In "However, that same year he became physician to the Finsbury Dispensary and held that post for five years and by 1842 had an income from his private practice of one thousand pounds per year. Adjusted for inflation this amounts to about £76,000. He became a Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians in 1840, and a Fellow in 1845": is his income all from the Finsbury Dispensary or all from separate private practice or both; ~~£76,000 as at which year, as inflation is 2.5% to 3% in a good year~~ I see you used {{Inflation}}, which adjusts annually. But {{Inflation}} uses consumer prices, while this sentence is about income, which rises fast, as economies develop - have a look at [=CPI&use[]=DEFIND&use[]=WAGE&use[]=GDPCP&use[]=GDPC&year_early=1851&pound71=500&shilling71=0&pence71=0&amount=500&year_source=1851&year_result=2008 Measuring Worth] --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim here that a physician earning £1000 then would be earning £76,000 now. It is not really related to wage inflation, we are saying that's what the spending power would be now. I've added that phrase to make it clear. Some sort of comparison is needed because the average reader is not going to know what £1,000 means in the 19th century. An alternative might be to compare it with, say, the Prime Minister's salary of the time, but even that might not be all that meaningful to readers. I note that the BBC in discussing PM's salary also uses an inflation adjustment for clarity. Spinning Spark 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y "Royal College of Physicians of London", as there are others. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
disambiguated at first mention in the lede. Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At "Bird lectured at Guy's on natural philosophy, medical botany and urinary pathology (1836–1853), and materia medica (1843–1853)", please change the parentheses to "from X to X", and in other places. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y "This last he also lectured on at the Royal College of Physicians" can be combined with the previous sentence, e.g. "and on the last subject at the Royal College of Physicians of London,from ..." --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit cumbersome as a single sentence, but I have now restructured the information in a different way which I think reads better. "...of London" has already been disambiguated at first mention and I don't think it is necessary to keep repeating this: in the context of an article about a London doctor it could hardly mean anything else and the wikilink at first mention will certainly confirm this if there was any doubt. Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"... but also in ~~the fields of~~ electrical science and chemistry". --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y You should combine "... in 1836. This was under the supervision of Addison, Bird did not graduate until 1838" into 1 sentence. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing of "This body was of a rather different nature to the elite scholarly institutions, more along the lines of a craft guild with a penchant for spectacular demonstrations" looks rather antique - but please keep spectacular demonstrations (I'm a kid at heart). --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand what you don't like here. Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- E.g. "Unlike the elite scholarly institutions, this ...". --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads "This body was very unlike the elite scholarly institutions, it was more along the lines of a craft guild with a penchant for spectacular demonstrations." Spinning Spark 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should combine "Bird's driving ambition occasionally led him into conflict with others. He was vain in character with a tendency to self-promotion", possibly reversing the clauses. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "in character" is superfluous. --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly avoid ambiguity by "By 1850, however, he Golding Bird was again working ..." --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguity with what? Presumably you mean that it could be taken that his brother was working as hard as ever: it is not likely that anyone is going to put that reading on it. The paragraph has started out referring to Golding Bird as "he" and to switch to "Golding Bird" on the second sentence when the target of "he" is already established is going to look very clunky. 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Y I suggest "But ~~further illness (~~acute rheumatism) caused Bird, in 1851, ...", with w-link. And move "in 1851" to the front of the sentence. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y "Even on holiday~~, however,~~ his fame caused him ..." as "Even" makes the point. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y Please remove the parentheses in "purchased an estate (St Cuthbert) for his retirement in Tunbridge Wells". Was St Cuthbert the name of the estate or its location? And "St.", please - twice. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cuthbert's is the estate, that's why it was in parentheses after "estate". Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed the periods from St Cuthbert again. This is for consistency with St Andrews and compliance with MOS:ABBR which considers British English usage to be not to use periods after contractions. Spinning Spark 22:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y At "(but only in his house)", please use commas. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The young age of 39 was perhaps ultimately due to a combination of lifelong frail health and overwork, certainly Bird himself believed that this was so" - hmmm? E.g. "Bird thought his imminent death was due to ..."? By the way, I was amused that in St. Louis Dr. Golding's death got more prominence than that of a Professor in Edinburgh. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is more than Bird believing overwork was a factor. Several sources also report this as their own view. Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just noticed "... suffering from kidney stones". An autospy, or had this malady been diagnosed earlier. --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  No mention of an autopsy in any source. Diagnosed from symptoms. Spinning Spark 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"(later named the Golding Bird gold medal and scholarship for bacteriology)" - commas, please. --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've belated that both versions of the medal's name has lower case. Sources at Google give various cases in the name, and I'd prefer one of the versions with more title case, for the original and the revised title. -Philcha (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  done Spinning Spark 20:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y Why did Mary insert the hyphen? --Philcha (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure she did, I think it more likely that the sources that reported her have inserted them. Not sure why, possibly confusion with Bird's son who does have a hyphenated name. I have now unhyphenated it. Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Society generally means, "... of London", and I think you should add "of London" the first time, as there are others, e.g. the Royal Society of New Zealand is Jumping Spider Central. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although it is hardly necessary, the Royal Society has such high status that a disambiguation is not needed except when speaking of another Royal Society. Spinning Spark 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(more sections)

Journal articles

In the list of "journal articles by Golding Bird or reporting his work", the bolding of "vol.n" is ugly and distracting - please changed to normal type. See the output of {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}}. My mistake, {{cite journal}} makes volume number bold. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list of "transactions of the Medical Society of London" uses a different format ~~- still bolding of "vol.n", but~~ now putting quotes round the issue rather than the journal article's title. Please make this list consistent with the previous one. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The format has not changed, you are misreading the entries. The source journal is not Transactions of the Medical Society, rather, it is Medical Times and the article is their report of the transactions under the titles given. I will try to find online links to put in to make this clear. Spinning Spark 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links and DAB pages

I'll check with User:Dispenser/Checklinks and the DAB checker when the content is stable.

Four dab links fixed Spinning Spark 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The caption says "Golding-Bird gold medal", but the picture shows no hyphen. Otherwise this pic is fine. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Spinning Spark 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I review the lead last, to check that all of it is based on the main text.

2nd review

I'll put my comments here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

For the first image, the thumbnail part should either be removed or a caption should be added; doesn't look good as is.
- Done
Most of the sentences in the life section start with Bird; mix it up a bit.
- First of all, that is not accurate; of the 47 sentences in the section only 13 start with "Bird". While repetition is generally undesirable, this is inevitable in a biography, especially the life section. I have removed one repetition of "Bird" but I don't think any major dent could be made in this without increasing the equally undesirable repetition of "he" or by using awkward and contrived constructions.
"However, that same year he became physician to the Finsbury Dispensary and held that post for five years and by 1842 had an income from his private practice of one thousand pounds per year. " splitting up this sentence may help, since with two and's, it seems like a run-on.
- Done
"Adjusted for inflation this amounts to a spending power of about £76,000 now." There's an inflation template you can use in lieu of the sentence; might be easier.
- The figure is already using {{tl:inflation}}. Which template did you have in mind?
"Bird followed this tradition and was particular influenced by the work of William Prout" particularly.
- Done
"Bird also designed his own interrupter circuit, described in more detail below" remove self-reference.
- Done
"For medical use, particular when treating a problem with nerves," particularly.
- Done
"For sensory nerves the opposite applied, flow was" should be a semicolon.
- Done
"Bird used his apparatus to treat Sydenham's chorea (St Vitus's Dance) and other forms of spasm, some forms of paralysis," the and should go after spasm.
- Paralysis is not a form of spasm. I have now put the clarification following "paralysis" in brackets to try to make it clear that the list continues beyond this point.
"invented by one I. L. Pulvermacher" one not needed.
- The "one" is a figure of speech indicating a person of no notability.
"Not only chlorides were used; beryllium, aluminium and silicon were got from the salts and oxides of these elements." 'were got from' sounds odd tone-wise; reword.
- Changed to "...were ~~got~~ obtained from..."
"For instance when Marcet discovered" comma after instance
- Done
"(Drs. Clendinning and Stroud)" are first names available for them?
- No
"The Literary Gazette for instance," comma after Gazette
- Done
All in all, the prose feels a bit heavy at times. This is probably due to the sheer volume of information. It's fine for GA, but if you're shooting for FA then I'd go through a peer review first to make the prose a bit less weighty.
- Thanks for the advice. Any specific comments would be welcome. Spinning Spark 17:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good, so I'll put this on hold for two weeks. I made it longer than I usually do since it's a long article, the writer is currently away, and I'd rather not fail this and see it having to wait three months for a review again. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the nominator has remained inactive, and I'm not someone who leaves GA reviews up indefinitely. As a result I am going to have to fail this nom. Should the issues be fixed and the article re-nom'd though, I'll pass it since this shouldn't have to wait over 3 months again. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, so now that the comments have been addressed, I'll reverse my close and pass the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]