Talk:Channing Robertson

Thoughts on the article re: GA status

I'm here dropping a few thoughts as requested by @Princessa Unicorn in preparation for a GA review. I have made a series of copy edits and a couple more substantial edits to the article, so I'll recuse myself from the GA review proper.

Introduction

• I think the final sentence needs a little tweaking. Calling the events surrounding Theranos "the Theranos scandal" isn't really NPOV, and the beginning portion "since his active role" isn't really clicking for me, though I can't articulate why
• I'd be curious to get the thoughts of other editors on the necessity of including Robertson's Theranos salary in the lead. I can certainly understand putting it in the article body, but I wonder if that is a detail that warrants inclusion in the introduction. I can see arguments both ways, and I'd lean toward removing it, but would be curious to see what others think

Early life and education

• The only issue I see here is the ambiguity of which oil company Robertson worked for. I understand that information may not be available. I left a tag there, and if the information is not available, please feel free to remove the tag.

Academic career

• I think terming the Theranos events "the collapse of Theranos" isn't NPOV
• It would be good, I think, to include a little more on Robertson's involvement in the tobacco case. From what I can tell, that case was hugely important for the later Master Settlement Agreement, and Robertson's testimony, though a small part of the case (called State of Minnesota et al. v. Philip Morris et al. from what I can tell, though this source doesn't mention Robertson so I can't be 100% certain), seemed to lay the groundwork for that settlement. CNN reported that Robertson's testimony allowed plaintiffs to put information before the jury that showed tobacco companies had been modifying crops and products to make them more addictive and conspiring to mislead consumers about the dangers of smoking. The LA Times reported something similar, though didn't directly credit Robertson with letting plaintiffs make that case. This NIH-published paper also offers a look at some of the longer-term impacts of the decision and settlement, though I don't believe too much of that should be included in the Robertson article and Robertson is a co-author, so a big block of salt is needed with that. We're also edging closer toward WP:NOR, so a careful hand and another set of eyes would be useful

Theranos

• I would consider combining the sentences "After Holmes dropped out, Robertson helped her start Theranos in 2003." and "Along with Robertson, his associate from his lab Shaunak Roy also joined Holmes at Theranos and became its co-founder." to note Holmes was not the sole founder of Theranos.
• I think there is a way to rework the following sentences in a manner that makes them more clear to follow and that makes it clear Robertson is not being quoted directly. It's important to make the distinction that the words quoted are interpretations of another witness's testimony. I have removed that content from the live article for the time being given the strictures of WP:BLP, to be readded when it is made more clear that Robertson is not being directly quoted. I am also not sure it is necessary to say that Grossman testified under oath. I'll leave my suggestion here rather than making it in the live article for others to discuss and adapt further.

Extended content

Current Brian Grossman of PFM Health Sciences relied upon expertise by Robertson, prior to his firm's investment in Theranos. Grossman spoke directly with Robertson, before deciding to invest $96 million in Theranos. Robertson stated to Grossman that there was zero "technical risk" with Theranos. Robertson said the only "risk" was "making sure consumers had a good experience". Robertson assured Grossman that the company's technology was years ahead of their competitors. After speaking with Robertson, Grossman felt confident in his firm's investment in Theranos. Grossman testified under oath as to his conversation with Robertson about Theranos, in the U.S. government's criminal trial against Holmes. Possible alternative According to The Verge, PFM Health Sciences chief investment officer Brian Grossman testified that he met with Robertson prior to his firm investing US$96 million in Theranos. Robertson assured him Theranos's technology was sound, years ahead of competitors, and the only risk related to the company was with customer experiences. References

• I think it would be best to replace the sentence attributed to Slate, which is currently a bit ambiguous (what was happening at Theranos?) with something based on this New Yorker article, which states Theranos, which is privately held, is both a hardware company and a medical company, and for many years it has operated with a stealth common to many Silicon Valley startups. “For a long time, I couldn’t even tell my wife what I was working on,” Channing Robertson, a chemical-engineering professor at Stanford and the company’s first board member, told me.

• I made some tweaks to the quotiation from Kathrein. I did not feel the introduction was NPOV enough, but let me know what you think.

In media

• This section uses a bit of flowery language (e.g. delved, courted, recounted) that should be cleaned up and made more neutral
• In the final sentence, did Irwin portray Gibbons or Robertson?

See also

• Should be removed per MOS:SEEALSO, all these links are present in the article body

Refernces

• I have not closely examined each of these sources for text/source integrity, but from a quick scan all of these outlets look solid. Screenrant is a bit iffy, but I think the way you used it here is aligned with the determination in WP:RSPS
• The date formats are inconsistent

Please give my copy edits a close look to make sure I didn't change the meaning too far from what sources say. Outside of these couple things, I think you are more than ready to submit to GAN. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)