Talk:Jane Goodall/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some prose and MoS issues, some more details further down.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Many citations needed & unsourced opinions, possible over reliance on primary sources, I'm sure there are many more newspaper, book & journal sources that could be found for this person.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I can't really comment on this as I'm not an expert and I haven't done any research on whether more could be included, as there are so many other issues. This is something worth checking in a peer review before another nomination.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fairly neutral, but there are some points that seem to be a little over-positive, more details below

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems to be some recent activity from anon IPs adding random facts

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No apparent problems

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Problems with sources/citations, prose problems, lead does not conform to WP:MOS (WP:LEAD)

There are several major issues here, but I'll go through and point out some things in each section.

Prose/MoS/content

Lead

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should adequately summarise the whole of the rest of the article. This is not currently the case and at the moment, the lead has only two sentences.

Early life and studies

• The first part of this section is choppy, with short sentences

  Merged one sentence, reads a bit better. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why is "Thesis Advisor" have capital letters?

  Smallicized. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Would be nice to state who Robert Hinde is, so the reader doesn't have to click through just to find out who he is. Otherwise they may be wondering why it's important who her thesis advisor was.

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Same thing with Louis Leakey in the next sentence

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• chimpanzee should be linked at the first mention, not the second

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a date for when she began her first study in Tanzania?

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "After obtaining his wife Mary Leakey's approval..." Mary Leakey has an article, so her name should be linked. Also, please make it clear her involvement and why he would be asking for her approval. At the moment it looks like he was just asking his wife, who was at home or whatever, if he could employ this woman as a secretary.
• "...where he confessed his plans" - sounds a bit overdramatic

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1959, Leakey became romantic about Goodall, but she refused him firmly." - I'm not even really sure what that means, but definitely needs rewording, and a citation

  Removed. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The funds were found in that year..." - what funds? Have funds been mentioned yet?

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "He cancelled the permit briefly.."- why?

  Removed. 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The permit was reinstated and the rest is history.[" - this is not the most encyclopedic language

  Removed. Jack (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

• This is a very short section and should probably be combined with another

Professional accomplishments

• The title of this section is not very neutral and sounds like a CV/resume

  Renamed, though other sections still need renaming. Jack (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Without collegiate training directing her research, Goodall observed things that strict scientific doctrines may have overlooked" - this isn't very neutral. If someone reliable/noteworthy has made this statement then fine, but for all I know she could have said this about herself.
• "Dr. Goodall’s research ..." - no need for the "Dr."

  Done. Jack (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "But perhaps more startling, and disturbing,..." - who exactly is startled & disturbed?

Controversy

• I'm not sure it's a good idea to have this as a whole separate section. Couldn't the differing scientific opinions be both incorporated into one section?

Publications

• There's a list of books, presumably written by Goodall, and children's books, presumable written by Goodall, and films; directed by her? About her? This isn't clear. At least one of these films, by the way has an article (Chimps: So Like Us) I don't know if any of the others need linking.

In popular culture

• This is bordering on indiscriminate information. The bits directly relevant to her should be turned into prose.

See also

• I'm sure both of these links could be written about in this article

References

• Some of these are bare URLs, some have no text at all, many could use more information. They should all have author, date, accessdate, publisher, title, page number, where available & appropriate

External links

• Are all of these necessary? I see that some are interviews, if these have relevant info, they should be used as sources. If not, they're not needed here.

References/citations

• Some {{citation needed}} templates (rightly so), and more text that needs citations but hasn't been tagged
• At least a couple of the links in the references are dead. The Jane Goodall Institute ones don't seem to go to specific pages.

Early life and studies

• First few sentences about her birth etc need a citation. The quote needs a citation (even though it says "As she writes in her book...", it needs a citation with a page number.)
• "After the divorce..." - needs a citation
• I'm not really happy with using her CV as a source, the chances are there is a secondary source that mentions her connection to Hinde
• "She is one of only nine people to receive a Ph.D..." - source?

  Found a ref that she was the eighth. Jack (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't watched the video to the end, so I don't know if it mentions that she was the first of Leakey's angles, or her work as a secretary. Please check that.
• "In 1958, Leakey sent Goodall to London..." - iis this whole paragraph verifiable from the citation at the end of the paragraph?

Personal life

• Completely unreferenced! This is not good for a WP:BLP, never mind a GA.

Professional accomplishments

• "Goodall is best known..." - this may be true, but could use a citation
• "These findings suggest similarities between humans and chimpanzees exist..." needs a citation, and attribution. I'm sure not everyone would agree with that.
• "These findings revolutionized contemporary knowledge..." - citation needed

In popular culture

• Largely unsourced

Pass/fail

Unfortunately this doesn't meet the GA criteria at this time. The main problems are the lack of citations, the references section, the lead section and some prose issues. I'm not sure if it's broad enough because I don't know enough about her, and I haven't looked into it, but that's something worth checking before next time. After addressing the issues above, I would recommend taking it to peer review as I haven't gone over this with a fine tooth comb, I've just pointed out the most obvious problems I saw. In future, I wouldn't recommend nominating articles that have maintenance tags, that's never a good sign. --BelovedFreak 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)