Talk:Paul Needham (librarian)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:37, 12 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: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yadda yadda ping if I don't do it within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is clear and concisely summarizes the article, no gripes
"first person to be promoted to senior librarian" - did the post not exist before or what?
"William H. Scheide [de; ru] bequeathed the Schiede family's full collection of rare books to Princeton" can there be a little context as to who these guys are?
"Needham spoke to NPR about the experience" it might be interesting to see what he said
"before he became employed himself by the" I think "before he worked for" or "prior to his employment with" might be simpler
Going from Needham helped expose the forgery to "Needham was a contributor to Galileo's O, a 2011 essay compilation analysing the book." makes it seem like Needham was contributing information about it being a forgery to that book. Only later do we learn it was a supportive assessment. Can we revise?
I think it might be worth saying what Houghton had done that Needham objected to
I swear to god at some point I was told that sentences with quotations had to be immediately followed by a reference, even when it covered the rest of the paragraph. I can't find it at MOS:QUOTE, WP:QUOTE, or WP:CITE, but...maybe consider this for the quotations about human skin books, just in case future revisions distance the citation from the quote.
"Selected works that Needham has been involved with" - shouldn't this be a "Selected works" section, bulleted?

No serious prose gripes, and I think it's safe to treat what's above as suggestions rather than anything prohibitive of a pass. No concerns about reliability of sourcing, no CV or close para detected (Earwig hits are proper nouns). Spot checks of Dark Archives and other accessible news sources didn't turn up any concerns. Sole photo is appropriate and correctly licensed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:35, 12 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.