Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara H. Bowman"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>BlueMoonset (new reviewer needed) |
imported>Spinningspark (still not ready, nothing has really been done) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
*[[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] New reviewer needed; previous reviewer did not respond before their most recent edit on April 4, so we need someone to take over the review. Many thanks. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC) | *[[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] New reviewer needed; previous reviewer did not respond before their most recent edit on April 4, so we need someone to take over the review. Many thanks. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] No attempt has been made to correct any of the issues raised in the first review. I don't really understand the problem the first reviewer had with ref #1 formatting, it looks fine to me. Earwig is not raising any problems except for one minor close paraphrase "Barbara Bowman Distinguished Texas Geneticist Award to recognize outstanding geneticists who have made major contributions to the field and have been affiliated with Texas institutions." If that is the way the award is cited, then it should be in quotes, otherwise reword. However, Earwig cannot read the text of ref #1 (it's difficult for humans to read as well), but checking manually, there is some close paraphrasing, but nothing I'd consider really serious (but no reason not to fix it). On the hook cite, the only place "polymorphism" is mentioned is in the lead and there is no inline cite there. In any case, the hook is a little technical for most readers to understand. Perhaps a hook about the award renamed in her honour would work better. On the length issue, it is not really a requirement of DYK that the article covers all important aspects of a subject. It is definitely not a stub—it is "C" class in my opinion ([[Wikipedia:Content assessment|"The article is substantial but is still missing important content"]]). [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 14:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC) | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 14:14, 2 May 2020
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Barbara H. Bowman
- ... that Barbara H. Bowman was one of the geneticists who discovered the polymorphism responsible for variations in haptoglobins? Source: There, she characterized additional serum proteins, particularly haptoglobin, that showed genetic variation. Seventeen years later, she and Oliver Smithies showed that the variation in haptoglobin was due to a polymorphic duplication of its encoding gene.
Created/expanded by Citing (talk). Self-nominated at 21:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC).
Long enough, nominated in time, should perhaps be moved to 10th when created (but that might be a timezone issue). No QPQ noted but editor appears not to have any DYK credits. No obvious neutrality problems in the article but unfortunately I think some work is still needed before this is ready for DYK.- The hook is concise & interesting to me, but might need a bit of unpacking for the general reader.
- The source is not cited inline with the fact in the article.
- Earwig seems completely down at the moment but a spot check found too much similarity to the wording in Ref 1.
- Despite the length, I'd still characterise the article as a stub. For example, it is missing the timeline of her career -- it jumps from doctorate to death in Life section -- usually there's a position-by-position account with dates. The Life section needs breaking up, and the honours part moving to Legacy or under Awards and honors.
- There are also major problems with the sourcing. Most of the Research career section is not sourced, or sourced only to primary sources. Most of the material in the infobox also needs a source.
- Full details needed for refs 1 (not clear from pages that it is just the legend to the cover), 2, 3
- Espresso Addict (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review Espresso Addict (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs). Most of the material is based off of the citation from the AJHG cover story as it's the most thorough source on her life. The scientific references are to add context to the experiments that she carried out (the timeline of her research is based off of the AJHG citation) rather than as primary sources for the biography. I don't know how much more I could add to this article however as she died before the internet really took off and I don't have access to local newspapers and archives which would probably have more about her. If that's not sufficient for a DYK entry then I understand.Citing (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
New reviewer needed; previous reviewer did not respond before their most recent edit on April 4, so we need someone to take over the review. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
No attempt has been made to correct any of the issues raised in the first review. I don't really understand the problem the first reviewer had with ref #1 formatting, it looks fine to me. Earwig is not raising any problems except for one minor close paraphrase "Barbara Bowman Distinguished Texas Geneticist Award to recognize outstanding geneticists who have made major contributions to the field and have been affiliated with Texas institutions." If that is the way the award is cited, then it should be in quotes, otherwise reword. However, Earwig cannot read the text of ref #1 (it's difficult for humans to read as well), but checking manually, there is some close paraphrasing, but nothing I'd consider really serious (but no reason not to fix it). On the hook cite, the only place "polymorphism" is mentioned is in the lead and there is no inline cite there. In any case, the hook is a little technical for most readers to understand. Perhaps a hook about the award renamed in her honour would work better. On the length issue, it is not really a requirement of DYK that the article covers all important aspects of a subject. It is definitely not a stub—it is "C" class in my opinion ("The article is substantial but is still missing important content"). SpinningSpark 14:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)