Jump to content

Talk:Chanchal Kumar Majumdar/GA1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
GA Review: comments
GA Review: comments
Line 12: Line 12:
::{{done}} contentious link the contents supported by it and the tag removed.--[[User:Tachs|jojo@nthony]] ([[User talk:Tachs|talk]]) 12:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
::{{done}} contentious link the contents supported by it and the tag removed.--[[User:Tachs|jojo@nthony]] ([[User talk:Tachs|talk]]) 12:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
* The GA criteria don't require any consistency in source formatting; the only thing required is that it is possible to get to the source from the information given. There are some oddities in the references that won't hold up GA, but you might want to take a look at them anyway: you have "--" instead of an em dash in footnote 21, for example, which also has a close parenthesis with no open parenthesis. More of a concern is that some of the references will not allow a reader to identify the source if the link goes offline. I think you should at least add page numbers to footnotes 3, 4, and 7. You also have "pp. 8-" or something similar in footnotes 12, 25, 26 and 29, and in two of the chapters listed in the "Selected bibliography section". I didn't comment on this with the other articles of yours that I've reviewed recently, since it's not required for GA, but FYI the source information you give is quite minimal, and it would be nice to add locations to the books, and access dates to the web links.
* The GA criteria don't require any consistency in source formatting; the only thing required is that it is possible to get to the source from the information given. There are some oddities in the references that won't hold up GA, but you might want to take a look at them anyway: you have "--" instead of an em dash in footnote 21, for example, which also has a close parenthesis with no open parenthesis. More of a concern is that some of the references will not allow a reader to identify the source if the link goes offline. I think you should at least add page numbers to footnotes 3, 4, and 7. You also have "pp. 8-" or something similar in footnotes 12, 25, 26 and 29, and in two of the chapters listed in the "Selected bibliography section". I didn't comment on this with the other articles of yours that I've reviewed recently, since it's not required for GA, but FYI the source information you give is quite minimal, and it would be nice to add locations to the books, and access dates to the web links.
::{{done}} I have made the necessary corrections. In most cases, I rely on tools for citing books, articles and news and do not check the syntax too much. I will but do so in future.--[[User:Tachs|jojo@nthony]] ([[User talk:Tachs|talk]]) 13:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
* As with the other articles I'd remove the cite and note in the lead.
* As with the other articles I'd remove the cite and note in the lead.
::{{done}}--[[User:Tachs|jojo@nthony]] ([[User talk:Tachs|talk]]) 12:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
::{{done}}--[[User:Tachs|jojo@nthony]] ([[User talk:Tachs|talk]]) 12:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:03, 28 January 2018

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate --jojo@nthony (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a tag on the article listing a blacklisted source.
 Done contentious link the contents supported by it and the tag removed.--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GA criteria don't require any consistency in source formatting; the only thing required is that it is possible to get to the source from the information given. There are some oddities in the references that won't hold up GA, but you might want to take a look at them anyway: you have "--" instead of an em dash in footnote 21, for example, which also has a close parenthesis with no open parenthesis. More of a concern is that some of the references will not allow a reader to identify the source if the link goes offline. I think you should at least add page numbers to footnotes 3, 4, and 7. You also have "pp. 8-" or something similar in footnotes 12, 25, 26 and 29, and in two of the chapters listed in the "Selected bibliography section". I didn't comment on this with the other articles of yours that I've reviewed recently, since it's not required for GA, but FYI the source information you give is quite minimal, and it would be nice to add locations to the books, and access dates to the web links.
 Done I have made the necessary corrections. In most cases, I rely on tools for citing books, articles and news and do not check the syntax too much. I will but do so in future.--jojo@nthony (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the other articles I'd remove the cite and note in the lead.
 Done--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead could be expanded. You haven't been adding personal biographical information to the lead; any reason why not? E.g. something like "He was born in Krishnanagar in Bengal, and studied at Presidency College and the University of Calcutta, with post-graduate work at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics and at the University of California, San Diego."?
 Done expanded to include the names of his illustrious mentors and protege--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please replace "superannuated" with a more widely understood word.
  • Why do we have File:VFPt dipole electric.svg in the article? I see magnetic moment is mentioned, but what does the picture add for the reader?
  • Calculation of critical isotherm of Lennard-Jones gas,: partial sentence -- no verb, ends in a comma.
  • His work has been cited by numerous authors. Can you confirm that the citations support this directly, via a citation index or a statement to that effect?
  • Two notable journals, Physics Today and Current Science, published obituaries on his death, which detailed the life and contributions of Majumdar: suggest cutting this; these are not notable facts in themselves; they're reliable sources that establish notability.
  • I don't think you need any of the external links. The Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize has a link in the article to the Wikipedia article on it, and there is a link in the references to the list of winners. The others are papers and sources and are not specifically of interest to readers interested in Majumdar.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]