Talk:Yuri Gabel

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yuri Gabel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GnocchiFan (talk · contribs) 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 21:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Be consisitent about transliteration. Either you are using Ukrainian or Russian transliteration. Personally I don't care which you choose, but please be consistent. So Октавіан should be Oktavian not Octavian; Мартинович is Martynovych not Martynovich etc., Yurii Habel is the Ukrainian transliteration and Yuri Gabel the Russian one etc. This is not a major issue but bear this in mind.

   In 1910, Yuri graduated with a gold medal from the Third Kharkiv Gymnasium. Another gold medallist from the gymnasium that year was Valery Mezhlauk -> In 1910, Yuri finished school with the gold medal (highest graduation distinction) from the Third Kharkiv Gymnasium; his classmate Valery Mezhlauk also received that distinction and would later become Gosplan director.

   graduating in 1914 with a first-class degree -> explain what a first-class degree would mean in terms English speakers would understand (equivalent to summa cum laude I guess?)

   In 1934, Gabel received the academic title of professor and the degree of Candidate of Sciences. Among the first scientists of the Faculty of Chemistry, along with Andrey Kiprianov [ru], he defended his doctoral dissertation on 27 November 1940, before the Council of Kharkiv State University named after A. M. Gorky. The topic of his doctoral dissertation was "The Chemistry of Barbituric Acid." -> In 1934, Gabel received the academic title of professor and the degree of Candidate of Sciences. Six years later Gabel, together with Andrey Kiprianov [ru], was the first member of his university's faculty of chemistry to get the Doctor of Sciences degree. He defended his thesis, The Chemistry of Barbituric Acid [add citation to the PhD thesis and its digital version if available] before the Council of A. M. Gorky Kharkiv State University on 27 November, and the government's Higher Attestation Commission of the All-Union Committee for Higher Education approved his doctoral degree on 1 February 1941.

   At the same time, since 1930, he worked at the Kharkiv Medical Institute, where he served as the head of the Department of Organic Chemistry from 1931 to 1945, and later as a professor. According to another record, he headed the department until 1949. It was noted that at the medical institute, Yuri Gabel managed not only to organize high-level teaching but also to establish scientific work in the department. He also taught a course in organic chemistry at the biological faculty of Kharkiv University. -> At the same time he worked at the Kharkiv Medical Institute since 1930, where he directed the Department of Organic Chemistry from 1931 to 1945(sources) or 1949(sources). He is recognised for his good organisational skills as he was able to establish a high quality of teaching while also heading research efforts (what were they researching under his direction?). (Move his teaching of the organic chemistry course to the paragraph about all of his different teaching ventures at Kharkiv universities).

   Chkalov Regional Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology named after I. I. Mechnikov -> I. I. Mechnikov Chkalov Regional Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology

   For several years, Gabel led the synthetic department of the Scientific Research Institute of Experimental Pharmacy. -> synthesis department. Synthetic = not natural; synthesis = how you create big stuff out of small stuff. Also, where was it, when exactly did he serve and is there a Wikipedia article about it? What did he achieve while working there?

   After returning from vacation in the fall of 1948, Gabel felt unwell, coughing and complaining of pain in his side. -> remove "in his side" - that's just not English. You seem to have used machine translation, and it doesn't really work that well.

   He was diagnosed with lung cancer. He was treated in Moscow, where he underwent radiotherapy at an oncology clinic. -> He was diagnosed with lung cancer and went for radiotherapy treatment at a Moscow oncology clinic. Also, specify whether his death was due to cancer. You could move the fact that his grave is still cared for by faculty members over there.

   Under the guidance of Krasovsky, Gabel engaged in the traditional study of α-oxide reactions for Kharkiv chemists. Specifically, he investigated the products of condensation of organic α-oxides with amines. -> That one is totally unclear. First, I guess you meant Krasusky and not Krasovsky. Secondly, what is "traditional" about the study of α-oxide reactions? Third, it would be very good to explain what α-oxides mean, what he found during his research of condensation reactions and whether it has some historical significance. I guess it's a niche topic, but it would be good to at least illustrate it somehow. I am reasonably good at chemistry, but I don't understand what that is supposed to look like.

   He wrote a monograph on this topic, which became his doctoral dissertation. He defended his dissertation in 1940. -> He wrote a monograph on this topic, which was the basis of his 1940 doctoral thesis.

   Gabel synthesised sulfathiazole in his laboratory following its introduction as a replacement for sulfadiazine. It was the first synthesis of this compound in the Soviet Union and was supplied to the children's clinic, where it was used to treat pneumonia in children. -> Gabel was the first person in the Soviet Union to synthetise sulfathiazole, an antibiotic intended as a replacement for sulfadiazine. The first batch was supplied to treat pneumonia in children.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead is too short for my taste. It's barely over 100 words, and tbh if I were to just tl;dr the article by reading the lead, I would not be sure about his contribution to organic chemistry. I know that deans are more like administrators than scientists, still I'd like some more specifics on what innovations if any he did while researching heterocyclic compounds. I understand that ru. and uk.wiki have different standards for leads, but on en.wiki they are usually larger than one paragraph.

   The legacy section appears to me like an unassorted trivia section even though it is not named that way. I mean, he was definitely an important person in Kharkiv scientific landscape but the way the legacy section is formulated gives me these strong vibes. Compare Joseph_Priestley#Legacy. Legacy should describe how his work influenced other scientists in the Soviet Union or possibly abroad, or the city he lived in. His poem - meh, doesn't cut it because he was not known to be a poet. A freshman conference is... borderline, and I'd even say not important because freshmen are not bona fide researchers. Viktor Domontovych isn't some first-grade novelist or writer, and anyway a passing mention in his novel is too trivial to be mentioned IMHO.

   I understand that the biography section is how you start biographies on ru.wiki or uk.wiki. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and I admit that one of my GAs (Maurice Duplessis, a premier of the province of Quebec in Canada) has that structure, but the difference here is that the biography section over there contains not only strictly his biography but also what he was doing as a politician and this is not duplicated or scattered in other sections. The problem I have with the layout of this article is that the biography section has a lot of info that would normally belong in the "Scientific activity" section - hell, he was a scientist after all - but moving it there would make the biography section deficient. Besides, splitting the scientific activity between two sections makes it harder to track his scientific interests and achievements in his career. You'd rather reorganise it and probably divide it in something more standard for en.wiki GAs - early life, university career prior to evacuation, 1940 to death, personal life. That's just a suggestion.

2. 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:

   Not the way I would have organised the sources, but it's an acceptable way to do that.

   One remark though, NEVER translate the names of newspapers or journals unless there is an accepted English name for it. Transliterate instead, and also it's good to provide the original name for it as well (so Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Izvestia, Dzerkalo Tyzhnia and not Russian Gazette, The News, Weekly Mirror. For newspapers that come from the times when Gabel lived, link to the Russian Wikisource page as is already done in the Russian and Ukrainian articles.

   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):

   In 1915, he defended his thesis on "The Effect of Light on the Electrical Conductivity of Iodine Mercury in Acetone" and was awarded the degree of Master of Science. That doesn't check out with the source, which says he was awarded the degree of "кандидат природничих наук" - I'm not sure this translates to "Master's degree". The years make sense it's a master's degree, but as far as I can see the Russian Empire had abolished candidate degrees in 1884 in most universities (which were below master's) and Soviet candidate degrees are equivalent to PhDs. I need some sort of explanation here. Btw, is that thesis digitised somewhere? Could be useful in external links or wherever it makes sense.

   In 1941, he authored a textbook, "Heterocyclic Compounds". This publication was the first attempt to write a textbook on this subject. -> That definitely needs a citation. Was this the first attempt to write the textbook on the subject in Ukraine, the Soviet Union or the world? Was it in any way influential among the Soviet or Warsaw Pact chemists?

   C. It contains no original research:

   The first paragraph about Yuri's family describes some concepts that are simply not there. The source does not say about the role of Orest Gabel but you include it. Same for Margarita, whose work on Turgenev is not mentioned on the page about her mother but is mentioned on her dedicated page.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No immediately obvious issues here.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I would add a sentence or two about his parents' role in maintaining public libraries in the Kharkiv region, particularly if that had some influence on the life choices of Yuri. Btw the article says nothing about his particular choice to go the chemistry path - are there really no sources out there saying why he chose to be a chemist? Whether his parents pushed him to go that way? After all, they were librarians and pretty smart people as far as I can see. Compare this with the article about Nadezhda Stasova (an FA about a Russian educator and feminist), where the details about her upbringing logically lead the reader to her later disillusionment with Russian women's life. Also compare this to Joseph Priestley or James B. Conant - fellow chemists. To be clear, we don't need a comprehensive article, but we should go in that direction. And I believe that just skipping over the first years of his life, particularly given his stellar academic results is a bit unbecoming of a GA. Your mileage may vary though.

   they established the correlation between the quality of tobacco and the alkalinity of tobacco smoke -> What is that correlation, in brief? What did they find?

   "Chemistry of Tobacco" pamphlet (1931) -> In English, titles are normally italicised instead of being inside quotes; secondly, a citation to that pamphlet would be good. Was his work on tobacco recognised anywhere outside the Soviet Union? Maybe he found something related to carcinogenicity of tobacco? A lot of questions, little answers here.

   Later, he began studying sulfanilamides. -> what caused his change of focus from psychiatric drugs to antibiotics? These are pretty different classes of medications.

   This article presented for the first time a chemical classification of antibiotics Is it still used? If not, for how long was it used and where? What are its tenets? Again, was this the first classification in the Soviet Union or in general around the world?

   the only department of heterocyclic compounds in the USSR at Kharkiv University in 1945 Did it achieve something notable under his watch from 1945-49? I mean, if it was of great use it wouldn't have been disbanded after his death, still, it's good to know what he was doing there. Doesn't sound like it was a sinecure for him but I'd clarify the usefulness of the institute.

   Personal life - was he married? Any children? If he was such a womanizer, surely he must have had some sort of love interest, didn't he? Are his relations with his family known? You could include contemporaries' reactions in the personal life section, but without quotes that are so large, because this really looks a bit like trivia.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   As of 1932, he was also a professor at the Ukrainian Polygraphic Institute. -> any prominent results coming from that professorship and the conference?

   While in Chkalov, Gabel wrote a poem titled "To Kharkiv", dated 22 May 1942. -> How is that relevant? You could describe his homesickness if there are good sources about that but the article simply doesn't do it.

   In 1946, he served as an opponent at the defence of Boris Krasovitsky's candidate dissertation. -> I don't see how this is relevant. The guy doesn't seem to be a major figure in chemistry, or organic chemistry and that doesn't really help explain what Gabel stood for and who he is.

   That medicine stuff at Kharkiv Medical University is just too vague. What exactly did he do there? Help create new synthesis paths? Improve efficiency? Discovering new drugs? Did he manage a pharmaceutical lab?

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   There isn't much possibility to cock this up here.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No disputes.

6. 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:

   File:Yuri Gabel from Vrachebnoe Delo.png needs to give a more specific tag for public domain and a US tag as well, given that Wikimedia Commons is a US entity.

   File:Хемія тютюну з посвятою.png could be more properly classified as PD-Ukraine though the front page has no copyrightable characteristics as well.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   You need alternative captions for each image

7. Overall:

   The article is not ready if you ask me. What I need to know about a scientist doing supposedly important work is not only where he was teaching students, but also the results and achievements of his research, particularly given he was leading some labs and even got his own institute studying a specific type of organic chemistry compounds, and he was a long-term dean of a faculty. He's not a titan but he ain't a run-of-the-mill researcher either, he actually accomplished something in his field. However, the article doesn't really do a good job showing the results of research and his accomplishments. It limits itself to rather general terms, but the specifics, the chemical reactions and formulas and discoveries/inventions simply aren't there. Surely he must have done something useful that the reader would like to know - but unfortunately it reads more like a CV than an actual article about a chemist that has apparently done something of use in his field. Maybe I'm harsh but that is not good enough for a GA article (at least as far as broadness criteria are concerned). I have no idea about his personal life either. Plus it's littered with information that isn't of much relevance to the biography and which would be properly categorised as trivia.

   I understand that this might be the case where the sources aren't really plentiful about him and you dug up almost everything available, but I interpret broadness criteria as imposing a minimum standard on what the article should include, regardless of the availability of sources. Unfortunately, as the article stands, I don't see it passing that standard.

   Please only interpret it as a dose of criticism and not as an insult or belittlement of your efforts. You have done a lot of good work. I just believe that GAs should be of a higher standard.

   Pass or Fail:

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.