Talk:Frederic M. Richards

Request for assessment/feedback

I've been extensively rewriting and expanding this article on Fred Richards, which was originally a stub and rather unbalanced. Since I have never done any assessment myself, and don't really have any feel at all about what the different quality class descriptions actually mean in practice, I'd really appreciate some feedback from those of you who understand the process better. We'll need such knowledge as the WikiProject Biophysics goes forward. Thanks in advance for whatever people can do! Dcrjsr (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm rating it a C. The scientific biography is probably GA-quality but the article is short of personal details. For example, is anything known about his earlier life? Did he have a family? Where did he live? I have added an infobox and you can have a look at the empty fields for some other facts it would be nice to have (open the article in the editor). Also, the timeline doesn't have any citations. You might try getting some help at WikiProject Biography because some people there are very good at digging this kind of stuff up. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! There's actually a lot more info available on both timeline and family, from the first 5 or 6 refs, so I'll work on adding things. I'm also trying to get a free image of him. Should I include quotes from his retrospectives/obituaries? Dcrjsr (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This is in pretty good shape now. I'm mainly waiting on permission from his daughter to use a photo, and perhaps something more should be added from his writeup about the Carlsberg lab visit. Then I'll ask for another assessment.Dcrjsr (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for further assessment

This now has the photo, more personal and other information, and the list of highly-cited papers has been updated. So I would be extremely grateful for further assessment from anyone willing to do that. - 152.16.223.249 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to review it thoroughly, but I can offer a few quick comments. First, it probably qualifies for GA already, and at worst only needs a few minor tweaks. I have two comments:

1. In a GA review, you may be asked to convert the numbered list of research areas to a plain paragraph. Also, claims about some achievement being the first (e.g., point 1) should be supported by a third-party reference.
2. The citation to Web of Science in Important papers has the drawback that an account is needed to access it. Maybe you could cite a Google Scholar search as well.

RockMagnetist (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the good suggestions!

What is the rationale for preferring a paragraph structure? I'd originally written it that way and felt it was very hard to read and digest in that form, and that the list was more clear and understandable. I can certainly change it back, but don't see the advantage.

I think I can document the "first" claim, but if not I'll remove it. Good point.

I'll try Google Scholar on documenting the citations. Web of Science provides the verifiability that was asked for, but I definitely see the issue about more open access. - 50.105.26.78 (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph structure is just a guideline (see Prose versus lists), so if it's clearer that way you might as well leave it.RockMagnetist (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that the references to the important papers can be linked. I have edited the first link to paper #1 to show how it is done. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking the "paper #_" is a really good idea - thanks! I've tried Google Scholar, and it's not really suitable for this. I expect the problem is that it doesn't go back far enough in years. The upshot is that it sees only 5 papers >500 cites not 10 - e.g., it gives only 237 for the Richards box paper. Should I put in some sort of note about this? - Dcrjsr (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, the list may violate the original research policy. Not only does it require a search in a database, but you have to be aware that an article on a tumor-suppressor gene is by a different FM Richards even though Web of Science puts it in the same author set. I have looked at a few FA-class biographies (for example, Alfred Russel Wallace); most just call the section Selected papers and don't provide statistics. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning about this issue; I know I have problems keeping to NOR, but would not have anticipated such a stringent interpretation here. Actually it's not at all difficult to prune the list correctly - you don't get the tumor-suppressor guy if you just add "Yale" to the search, which I did after the first time. (I'm really looking forward to when ORCID goes live, and we'll be able to search on unique author IDs!) In the other direction, I'm uncomfortable with calling it "selected", because that could well be entirely subjective. How about I keep to the strict facts and call it a list of "highly cited papers"? I'll take a look at Alfred Russell Wallace for guidance on content and style. - 69.105.233.23 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm tired & forgot to log in first. - Dcrjsr (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Alfred Russel Wallace piece really is interesting and impressively complete. Fred Richards is not in at the same level of lay interest, controversy, and book-length documentation. Do articles ever make it to FA without that high degree of notability? I'm only used to featured pictures on Commons, which do not require it - but then, images have the visual appeal and technical quality aspect to judge. I'll troll around at Biography and look for some FAs of recent scientists. - Dcrjsr (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The article now has a good picture for the personal bio section, more information on the other research areas, and all refs with consistent format. Given how few good bios of contemporary scientists there are, I've upped its importance to WikiProject Biophysics to "High", and changed its quality class to B (it's most definitely at least that good). - Dcrjsr (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I was really happy to see this wonderful biography on Fred Richards while gathering information for a review on validation of protein structure. This is a "Britannica" class entry useful for experts working in the field as well as lay readers.

Arguably Richards was the originator or at least most important champion of a "packing" perspective on the stability of folded proteins (though it draws heavily from Bernal's earlier work and was also developed by Kitaigorodski for organic crystals) Also arguably, our current understanding of folded globular protein shape rests on three legs: (i) the geometric packing perspective of Richards; (ii) the thermodynamic hydrophobicity doctrine of Kauzmann; and (iii) the evolutionary sequence dogma of Anfinsen.

Certainly this is George Rose's view as stated in the Richards biography at Pioneers in Biology. He says:

In contributions to theory, Fred has pioneered the use of surface area and volume to understand protein folding. More than others, this productive approach has been his creation. ... His 1977 review of these topics (F. M. Richards Ann. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng. 1977, 6: 151-176) is a durable masterpiece that spawned a field and, without exaggeration, influenced thousands of working biochemists. Later, with T. Richmond and F. Cohen, this geometric approach was extended to show that excluded volume limits folding to a remarkable degree.

One criticism: Richards' research contributions in (i) solvent accessible surface; (ii) mathematical descriptions of protein packing; (iii) rotamer libraries; (iv) protein engineering; and (v) pressure studies of protein structure are -- in the current article draft -- unpacked and scattered. I personally think that all these contributions are part of a broader "geometric packing perspective" on protein stability and function. This contribution was in my view greater than the sum its parts . So it might benefit from being gathered together.

Specifically in this vein, the word count for the solvent accessible surface -- though perhaps commensurate with the publication citation rating -- is in my view disproportionate to its actual scientific contribution. So this might be contracted. I think the development of rotamer libraries -- which was seen in conception as stepping stone to protein engineering -- is at least as important. So this might be expanded.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Antony-22 (talk · contribs) 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In progress.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Detailed comments below

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Detailed comments below

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See comment below on Ref. 1, all others are fine

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am satisfied that this meets the GA criteria. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

More detailed comments:

• Reference 1 should link to the specific posts containing the information cited. I feel that using this type of blog as a source is borderline acceptable under WP:RS, but it would be preferred if the information could be referenced to a more traditional source.

I found substitutes for 2 of the 4 blog cites; it's a one-page, one-time post, just hosted on a "blog" site. Dcrjsr (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Great. The blog would make a good external link, though. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm uneasy about making it an external link, because I thought they were not supposed to duplicate things in the ref list. What do you think? Dcrjsr (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I missed it because it fell down to number 8. Never mind, then. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• The citations in the first paragraph are unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE.

Fixed. Dcrjsr (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Words introducing quotations should be in the past tense, e.g., "...which he describes as 'uneventful'" should be "...which he described as 'uneventful'", and so on.

Fixed. Hope I caught them all. Dcrjsr (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Summary of career events section should be integrated elsewhere in the main text, per WP:PROSE. Lists of awards are discouraged, so only the few most notable awards should be mentioned in the article.

Comment: Lists of works and timelines presents a different point of view. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried out moving the career events to other places, and found it awkward (of course there may be better ways than what I tried. It ended up with an unwieldy award section in the infobox, esp since I didn't want to lose the date and ref info. So I ended up reverting it, but am certainly still open to persuasion on the issue. Dcrjsr (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Timelines aren't particularly standard for biographies, and it borders on looking like the sort of awards list that there would be in a resume. The items relating to degrees and postdoctoral appointments could easily be included as prose in the Personal biography section, and in fact many of them already are. As for the awards, many of these are already mentioned in the lead. I'd recommend putting a prose paragraph about the awards in the Administration, etc. section and renaming it to something like Other accomplishments. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, will work on that line. Dcrjsr (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I still can't get that set of information to work as integrated into the prose flow. I've compromised by shortening the list of career events, moving the degree dates into the infobox, and mentioning fewer awards in the lead. Dcrjsr (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

More to follow. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I made some copyedits myself, mostly for minor grammar and punctuation issues. Some remaining issues:

• "RNase S (and, separately, RNase A) became the third protein structure determined by X-ray diffraction of crystals..." This sentence is confusing. Was RNase A the fourth? If so it should be stated; if not then that's an awkward place to mention it.

Tried to clarify with a minor rewrite. Dcrjsr (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused. These were two structures published in two different articles, so they would be the third and fourth structures, right? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

They are two forms of the same protein. I've tried again on the clarification. Dcrjsr (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• The last two subsections under Research career contain many short, choppy paragraphs, which should be combined in an appropriate way.

Combined items in the packing section. In "Other research areas", they are still left separate, because they describe truly unrelated pieces of work. Maybe I should find more to say about some or all of them? Dcrjsr (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the more laudatory sentences in Administration, mentoring, and outside activities should be worded more neutrally by attributing the statements, such as by adding the phrase "According to X...", as these are opinions rather than facts.

Have worked in two cases of this kind of softening. Dcrjsr (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Including the times cited in the list of papers at the end is unnecessary, and is likely to go out of date quickly anyway. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dcrjsr (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your well-considered wording shifts! I've reverted just one: back to "Sally's Baage" -- a slide in the video in Sally's in memoriam on the Guilford Land Trust site 2011 shows the boat with that name on the side, presumably a comment on her Maine accent. I've tried to explain it very briefly without overloading the point. Dcrjsr (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. The cited source said "Barge" but I trust your discretion here. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My original source (Rose; ref 6) called it barge and I originally did also, but the Land Trust piece now cited (ref 7) is more authoritative because it shows the actual boat. Dcrjsr (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple more issues, likely the last set:

• Is Voronoi diagram the correct article to wikilink for "Voronoi polyhedra"? (I added this but I just want to make sure.)

Comment: Voronoi polygon redirects to Voronoi diagram. Maybe Voronoi polyhedron should too. Then, if someone later creates a separate article on Voronoi polyhedra, the link still works. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Voronoi diagram is the best we can do - Delaunay triangulation describes the dual relation of the two, but would make for a confusing link. Indeed probably Voronoi polyhedron could redirect - but I hope no one makes it a separate article. Dcrjsr (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• "...some used primarily for structure validation and others primarily for homology modeling or protein design." The word 'primarily' is used twice in the same sentence.

Fixed. Dcrjsr (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• "...apart from a rather small compaction in size." Was the change in size small, or did it change to a small size?

Change was small; clarified wording. Dcrjsr (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• "'quickly gained pre-eminent stature'" Quote needs an attribution, or could be reworded without a direct quotation. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed a direct quote from the source cited right afterward, which is how I handled all the other quotes. I believe I've now responded to all the comments & suggestions, and fixed a few minor formatting problems myself as well.Dcrjsr (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One more thing - I noticed that you changed the wording in the first paragraph of the packing section. But that whole last bit was a direct quote from Rose, so I've changed it back. Dcrjsr (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I see, there was an errant extra quotation mark in the old version that caused me to misinterpret where the quote ended. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)