Talk:Walter Munk/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: RockMagnetist (talk · contribs) 05:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to review this page. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well written and well sourced, aside from a few minor issues I'm fixing as I go along. However, I can't access most of "Seventy Years of Exploration in Oceanography". Where I can't find an alternative source, I'm willing to take it on good faith, but I would like to see the chapter for each citation specified. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 70 Years book is available by PDF, legitimately for free, I believe, from here. Bdushaw (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to remove a "duplicate" citation to "70 Years", when I noted it had the chapter title. I take it you would like to use a separate citation for each chapter of the book? So, the citations to this book presently without a chapter, should be changed to include a citation with the chapter title? I think that could be helpful. Check the PDF above to see if you still would like to do that. In the Discovery of the neutron article we used a citation system that would give the appropriate page numbers to a citation such as this. Bdushaw (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my first comment above, I suggested chapters, but using page numbers would be even better. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will try a few citations with page numbers, and we can decide what's best to do. I suspect page numbers with a single citation to the book might work best. You've added the PDF link to the citation, I see...curiously there has been a bot going around removing such links as being redundant with the citation information. The bot vexes me, since it removes links/access to free material, whereas the ISBN number, say, just sends you to, e.g., Amazon. We'll see if the new link escapes the bot... Bdushaw (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of edit can always be reverted. Also, another bot has recently been "bluelinking books for verifiability" (e.g., this edit). RockMagnetist(talk) 18:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have not yet agreed on a desirable format for citations to this book...absent further input, I'll proceed with the addition of page numbers in the citations - and removal of the citations to the book chapter(s). Bdushaw (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to use any format you like as long as it's consistent. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the sentence about the renaming of IGP to IGPP because I couldn't see any details on it in the two IGPP citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Done: I fixed that, and provided an example of how I'd like the chapters of "Seventy Years" to be cited.[reply]

Thanks for all the improvements! I am objecting modestly to the removal of the brief description of the founding of UCSD. Munk and Revelle were mates, and UCSD was founded at about the same time as IGPP - it is an important background for that 1958 timeframe. Also about the time Munk became professor at UCSD/SIO, of course. Bdushaw (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong objection to putting an improved version of that description in. The sources didn't seem to support Revelle being a major backer of the IGPP campus, and that left a single not very interesting sentence. However, Revelle was largely responsible for turning Scripps into a major research institution, and that is certainly relevant. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the section to include the deleted material. See how you like it. It would be worthwhile, perhaps, to establish a Revelle connection to IGPP's founding. It seems obvious since Revelle was Director of SIO at the time and would have been both informed and supportive to have it go forward, but something more substantive might be useful. Bdushaw (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! RockMagnetist(talk) 23:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lede will need proper citations, I've just noticed. Bdushaw (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily - see MOS:CITELEAD. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I read the rest of the article and there were no more issues. It was a pleasure to read this. I was at Scripps myself for a few years and met Walter Munk; he was such a warm, kind individual. Great job! RockMagnetist(talk) 20:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]