Talk:Jean Desbouvrie/GA1

GA Review

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

I will do the GA Review on this article. H1nkles (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Looking forward to it. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
There are some missing non-breaking spaces and hard dashes that should be addressed.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The credible sources don't cover some of the major aspects unfortunately. If further information becomes available it should be included.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The author is an image expert I have no concern about the images

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I note that one of the images was removed, this is unfortunate. The other image is fine.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article is good despite a lack of information. As much as is readily available without engaging in WP:OR is in the article. I will pass it to GA.

Lead

The lead is fairly undeveloped. Per WP:LEAD it should be a summary of the entire article, the lead does not mention his youth or the actually training of the swallows. This should be added to augment the lead.
I added a hard dash (–) to the dates in the lead. Check other places where hard dashes would be required per WP:DASH.

Youth

You mention robbing nests between his work deliveries, what was his work deliveries? What did he do during his youth? Is there mention in the sources about how he trained these swallows?

All the information that was available from reliable sources has been included. Durova^Charge! 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swallow training

You appear to use Sparrows and Swallows interchangeably, is this intentional? You may have ornithologists who take issue with that :).
I added a non-breaking space between 30 and years. Please check throughout per WP:NBSP.

Government interest

In the government interest section there is a distance mentioned of 258 km, per WP:UNIT there should also be a conversion to miles in (parentheses). H1nkles (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the 258 km would make up 160,31 mi . . . with the given 90 minutes of time, this would calculate to a speed of 172 km/h - the article on swallows assign them a speed of 20 m/s or 72 km/h. There seem to be a little inconsistancy.--Pentaclebreaker (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

The refs look good, links are good and formatting is ok.

Overall Review

The article is coming along. Images are great, prose is fine. There are some MOS compliance issues that I'd like to see addressed. These are mentioned above. I note that a question about the results of his hangover experiments is listed in the article's talk page. There is no information as to the outcome of these experiments? We don't want OR so it's fine if nothing exists, but that is a glaring question readers are left with at the end of the article. What about his personal life? What about his death? Anything about these topics? Also the aforementioned job he did as a youth that would entail "deliveries". I'd like to see a little more if it's available in order to satisfy the comprehensive criteria. I'll hold the article for a week pending work. H1nkles (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this was a fellow who was notable for two things a few years apart, and was pretty effective at getting attention for his projects. Then the reliable sources stopped writing about him. So we have only sketchy details of his early life and none of his final years. The few other sources in French and German are basically translations and derivatives of the sources already cited in this article.

It would be OR to say this explicitly within the article, but the fellow was a crank. The topic turned up during a survey of nineteenth century aviation, which was mostly ballooning. An architectural design for an aviary of military swallows? Research on aviaries, military communications, etc. turned up nothing. But mentions of a 'Jean Desbouvrie' occurred. Looking further, there was enough material to establish notability and go well beyond a stub. And as it became apparent exactly what he had done, it was hilarious. Would like to make this a candidate for the April Fool's main page: the fellow convinced the government of France to invest in military research on swallows, and convinced the leading French medical society to publish a proposed solution to the evils of alcoholism--in the form of a supposed hangover cure he had tested very thoroughly upon himself.

Good comments above; will review and polish. And will pick through the sources to see how much more rounded this can become. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I certainly prioritize maintaining an accurate article consistent with the research record. I did find it interesting that he tried to convince the world about the evils of alcoholism by finding a cure for hangovers. Wouldn't that attain the opposite result? Please take a look at the MOS suggestions I made. I will pass the article to GA. H1nkles (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What really had me doubled over was the bland assurance that he had tested the hangover cure extensively upon himself. Have rewritten and expanded the lead. Could expand the details of the hangover cure by translating a bit from the report. Durova^Charge! 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]