Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James E. Boyd (scientist)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:56, 12 June 2011 [1].

James E. Boyd (scientist)[edit]

James E. Boyd (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination really helped the article (diff of beginning of FAC1 to now), but there were a couple open issues when the FAC was closed; namely that we didn't have a decent quality picture of Boyd, and that we didn't have his obituary. I have since found both and added them to the article. Apparently, he really did nothing of note between his retirement from academic life and his death- even his obituary is silent on that period of time. If you would like to see the obituary, I can put a copy on an image/file hosting site of some sort, as it was found in meatspace. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources - spotchecks not done
  • Newspaper or magazine articles without weblinks need page numbers
  • The copy of the obituary I found in meatspace was archival and the page number was missing. I poked a friend with NewsBank access and they were able to help me with one of the articles (ref 1) but not the other (ref 2). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
  • So would you suggest moving ref 3 to the Works Cited section and doing something along the lines of Stevenson, p.### with that one? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added html comments with the page numbers next to each ref instance for when you decide what you want to do with that. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 16, 32: formatting
  • Ref 16 (Propagation Studies of Electromagnetic Waves): Can you elaborate? Ref 32 (Consumer Price Index): This is generated by {{Inflation-fn}} and I have no control over the format there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: title is italicized in article text but not here - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 13: why use number for month here and spell out for other month-year dates?
  • Publications should consistently be italicized
  • Done. I only found three, all instances where the publisher parameter was used instead of the work/newspaper parameter in the template. Did you see any more than that? LaMenta3 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't write titles in all-caps
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations or not.
Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Overall it looks to be in good condition and I'm leaning toward support. It would be nice if there were more on his research activities, but that information doesn't appear to be readily available.[2] Here's a few concerns and curiosities:

  • If his degrees were in mathematics, why did he get hired as a physics instructor? Did he express any earlier interest (or have any training) in physics that would explain this transition? This seems important because it apparently defined the remainder of his career.
  • Mathematics and physics are academically similar, and it's not terribly uncommon (even today) for people with a background and mathematics to work as physicists (or physics instructors). There doesn't appear to be anything that indicates exactly why he started teaching physics, but I guess it never struck me as odd because the competencies required are similar. Does that satisfy your question? LaMenta3 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes and no. Having studied both, I understand the switchover is quite do-able, given sufficient time and study. But I guess I'll have to remain unsatisfied with regards to why. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
  • Why is "Commander" capitalized but "captain" is not?
  • Why was his work Propagation Studies of Electromagnetic Waves considered ground-breaking? As the reader is left thinking this is his major contribution on the research side, I think it would be good to clarify this.
  • "...as the station did not think Georgia Tech should be involved in the manufacturing business." In what sense is the "station" thinking here? Is this a preference of the station director?
  • "When forced by Georgia Tech vice president Cherry Emerson to choose between the two organizations..." Why did Emerson force Boyd to choose here? I'm assuming because his attention was split between the two, which the VP found objectionable. But this should probably be made clear.
  • "The chancellor hoped this combination would smooth over a brewing controversy regarding the relationship between the Engineering Experiment Station and Georgia Tech." This statement requires nearly 1.5 paragraphs of explanation before it becomes clear. It might make more sense (and provide better flow) if the existence of a link between his selection and a controversy were communicated after the sentence "This was the climate into which Boyd entered..."
  • Is this(diff) kind of what you had in mind? I'm not sure I understood what you were saying. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing redundant uses of the additive term "also". For the reader, the "also" should follow logically from the flow of the text.
  • I've taken care of the ones you pointed out, I'll keep an eye out for others as I do a bit more cleanup. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boyd was also known for..." => "Boyd was known for..."
  • "Boyd also had to deal with..." => "Boyd had to deal with..."
  • "had also warned for years..." => "had warned for years..."
  • "The board also voted..." => "The board voted...", &c.
  • In this case, the board voted on one thing, and in the same meeting they voted on something else ("the Athletic Association board...voted to not renew Carson's contract, making him the first Georgia Tech coach to be fired. The board also voted to not accept Bobby Dodd's resignation...") so I'd like to leave this wording as-is.LaMenta3 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to mention that he was a Phi Beta Kappa grad, as that is somewhat prestigious.[3]
Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:James Boyd at Podium.jpg should be cropped to remove the extraneous areas e.g. the chairs at the front and the expanse of foliage at the top right. It's a high enough resolution that it could be cropped down to concentrate on Boyd and the podium without looking poor. The caption should be clarified - 'at an event' doesn't add anything and just makes the reader wonder what event. If you know even a basic detail, such as which university he was speaking at, or which decade, that would be better. Modest Genius talk 15:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can certainly crop the picture to better focus on Boyd, but the only detail I know for certain is that Georgia Tech owns the picture. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it was during his time as president of Georgia Tech due to his age and who possesses the photo, but it would be just that: a guess. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another detail I missed; those cars in the background look like they're from the 60s-70s. Combined with the photo's presumed origination (Georgia Tech) I feel pretty safe narrowing the date to between May 1971 to March 1972. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better. I tried it in the article and it looks good. How about 'speaking at Georgia Tech'? Simple and almost certainly accurate, without any guesswork required. You're probably right about it being while he was acting president, but best to be safe. Modest Genius talk 10:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO comments:

  • We need the page number of the obituary. (I suggest going to Fulton County Library, pulling the microfiche for the AJC.) Honest, not meant to seem over-strict, but a paper for a journal would require a proper reference.
  • The difficulty with that is that I live in Texas now, otherwise I'd be willing. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotta have it man. They just run at that standard around here. ;) A journal would insist as well. (I think there is a category of users that are Atlantans, or users that are Varsity-burger-eating Yellowjackets. Ask there. Or Village Pump or whatever...adapt and overcome like a Marine...)
  • Wondering if an article name like (professor) or (college administrator) would be more helpful. I expected to find that this guy was notable for some scientific achievement when I got here but there wasn't much there. Seems like his notability is from his executive positions. TCO (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, scientist isn't the best descriptor, but I'm satisfied enough with it for now. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remarks needs legacy sectionrm2dance (talk)

Disagree. - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content that would go in a "legacy" section are included in the "retirement" section. There's not enough content there for legacy to stand on its own and not be a two-line section. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I can rename the "retirement" section to be "retirement and legacy" and that should satisfy this. diff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Leaning support. I'll add comments here as I go through the article; I'm about halfway through but may not get much more done tonight. Looks pretty good so far. — Mike Christie 00:30, June 3, 2011 — continues after insertion below

  • The second and fifth sentences of the lead say the same thing; could this be compressed?
  • Two consecutive sentences in the lead start with "As": "As director .... As the third president ...": would sound better to vary one of these.
  • "Loomis Fellow" doesn't mean much to a modern reader; per this book (p. 266) you could perhaps add a footnote explaining the qualification that Boyd must have achieved to gain the fellowship.
  • I'm not sure there's enough for an article on the fellowship. Even if there is, a footnote giving the qualifications is information about Boyd, so I think it would be reasonable to put it in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I attempted to write one such footnote, and put the sources at the end of it. I assume that's how you structure those. diff —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'highest-testing'? Do you mean the student with the best examination results? Because that sounds very strange at present. Also, shouldn't that be in a group=note with the sources in nested <ref> tags? Modest Genius talk 20:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have actually never used a group=note section, but found a good example on the Killer whale article and implemented it in the article. Snazzy. diff —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I went ahead and quoted the "best competitive examination" bit from the two sources instead of using highest-testing. diff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That does it. I agree, separating notes from citations is cool; it helps the reader, since they know that any footnote with just a number only has source info; anything with a "Note" has information, so they don't waste time checking every footnote for additional info. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, decorative quote boxes such as {{rquote}} are supposed to be reserved for pull quotes. You could get around this by incorporating the text in the article, perhaps.
  • I attempted to add the quote to the article prose. I really wish there was a date attached to the quote in that source, but there isn't. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boyd wrote an influential article about the role of research centers at institutes of technology,[24] which argued that research should be integrated with education, and correspondingly involved undergraduates in his research": the structure of the sentence makes it appear that it was the article that involved the undergraduates in research"; can you reorganize this?
  • "his placement of physicist Earl W. McDaniel": "placement" is a bit odd -- I think you mean that McDaniel is an example of someone hired by Boyd who could teach and do research. What was the cause of the opposition? Did Howey oppose the policy (which would be interesting to note in the article) or just McDaniel (less interesting to someone reading about Boyd)? How about making the phrasing more active, e.g. "Boyd preferred to recruit faculty capable of both teaching and performing notable research, though Joseph Howey, director of the school of physics, opposed this policy. One such scientist was physicist Earl W. McDaniel, whom Boyd hired as an assistant professor over Howey's objections." Just a thought. (I got "assistant professor" from the article on McDaniel; don't know if it's accurate.)
  • Howey opposed hiring McDaniel because of his presence at "an undergraduate picnic at which a keg of beer was prominent" while McDaniel was an undergrad (source, p.1, second paragraph). The sources make a big deal over how Boyd was able to recruit this guy even though Howey would have none of it. I had this in the article, but reviewers on the first FAC found my phrasing to be confusing (which it was, so I'm open to suggestions on how to communicate this little story). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is confusing me; it's from this, right? But I don't see the provenance -- is this individual personal essays, or a pdf version of a book of some kind? I see it's on the GA Tech site, so there's not a concern about self-publishing, but I would like to understand why this is a reliable source.
  • I emailed the library archives asking for more details on that collection, as that's something I'd like to know as well. I'm not optimistic about them having an answer, though. The documents look somewhat older, and have proven accurate when cross-referenced with other sources. Unfortunately, they gloss over the individual's life outside of Georgia Tech. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've no reason to believe they're not accurate; unfortunately that's not enough for WP:RS. I'm in two minds about this, so I've asked Ealdgyth to give an opinion; she's a very experienced FAC source reviewer. If that whole source should be regarded as not reliable, and you had to remove it, how much damage would that do to the article? Can you get most of the information from other sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth replied; she agrees that it's reliable but without knowing who wrote it and how it was edited it's not the best source you could use. I'd suggest limiting the use of this source to those places where the information can't be sourced elsewhere. I'll strike my comment, though, since it is an RS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the phrasing, I think the problem is that the sentence is saying two different things. Boyd is known for recruiting people who could both teach and do research; that's one fact. Separately, he was able to recruit someone despite Howe's opposition -- presumably this speaks to his influence, or effectiveness at office politics, or something like that; it's not really connected to the hiring policy, is it? If I'm reading this correctly, then (assuming the source holds up as reliable) how about "Boyd was known for his recruitment of faculty capable of both teaching and performing notable research. He was influential enough to be able to override the wishes of Joseph Howey, director of the School of Physics, on occasion: for example, Boyd successfully hired physicist Earl W. McDaniel in 195? over Howe's determined opposition." and then a footnote saying "Howe's opposition was based on a couple of incidents during McDaniel's undergraduate career involving alcohol, which Howe felt indicated a lack of decorum". You can probably improve the phrasing a bit, but would that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like the way you phrased that, and went ahead and put it in the article. Footnotes are apparently just what my prose style needs, I suppose? I did spell out the names in the footnote because it felt right to do so, and put a ref at the end. diff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that looks right. I don't know if your style needs footnotes, specifically! I think they're very handy for parenthetical remarks that you don't want to place in the main flow of information. Sometimes they can help resolve a copyediting problem where too much information is trying to crowd into a single sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boyd was succeeded in the directorship by Robert E. Stiemke": given that the prior sentence takes us to 1996, and this is jumping back in time, I think it would help orient the reader if you gave the date of this succession.
  • I know you're dependent on the sources, but the details are a little light in places. Is there nothing at all to be said about his childhood? Or, for example, how and why he became president of West Georgia College? You mention the incumbent's heart attack, but that's just the reason there was an opening, not the reason Boyd was appointed. If the sources are silent, there's nothing that can be done, but it would be nice to add some more details if they exist.
  • I really expected to find some sort of detail about his childhood in his obituary; no dice. It covered the same highlights of his life that I already had in the lead section of this article. I noticed that there's a University of West Georgia scholarship for a graduate of Bremen High School, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that James E. Boyd went to that school (much less if it was even open when he was high school age, 1920-1924). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspected as much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks done on sources to check for plagiarism; I found two or three cases where there are several words in a row ("focused on radar and communications") taken from the source, but nothing longer than that. I think this is on the right side of the line.
  • The short first paragraph of the "Georgia Tech president" section ends with a comment about Hansen and Carson that led me to think you were not going to cover those issues in depth; I see now you were summarizing, but I don't think it's necessary. I'd just cut that sentence completely. That would leave you with just two sentences in that section; I think that would be OK. If you do that, you'll also need to change "Then-president", further down, to something like "Boyd's predecessor", since you would not have introduced Hansen to the reader in that case.
  • "Boyd's selection as interim president by the University System of Georgia's chancellor was influenced by his previous experience as an academic administrator and director of the Engineering Experiment Station": why refer to Simpson as "the University System of Georgia's chancellor" when you've already identified him? How about "Simpson's selection of Boyd as interim president was influenced by Boyd's previous experience as an academic administrator and director of the Engineering Experiment Station"?
  • At one point you say "the Engineering Experiment Station, now known as the Georgia Tech Research Institute", but in the EES section you say "the contract organization's (then known as the Georgia Tech Research Institute, now known as the Georgia Tech Research Corporation) reserve fund". The first phrase makes it seems as if GTRI is just a later name for the EES, but then the second point makes it appear that there's a separate (sub?) organization called the GTRI within EES (that acts as "the contract organization", though I'm not clear what that means). Can you clarify?
  • Yeah, this one is confusing. The organization that started out known as the Engineering Experiment Station changed names to the Georgia Tech Research Institute in 1984. There is a separate organization that started out being called the Industrial Development Council, renamed to the Georgia Tech Research Institute in the 1950s, and renamed to the Georgia Tech Research Corporation in 1984. Now, to answer why this exists: legally, the university can't generally accept contracts from entities, especially the federal government, so there's a shell company set up with the single purpose of acting as an intermediary that can accept funding (including multi-year contracts) on behalf of the university. That's what that second company is. Does that help you? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that really is confusing. In that case I'd suggest cutting the parenthesis -- " (then known as the Georgia Tech Research Institute, now known as the Georgia Tech Research Corporation)" -- and putting the whole explanation in yet another footnote. The name of the contract organization isn't that important to the flow of the story; if you explain both its old and new name, and mention the possible confusion with the current name of the EES, and also include your explanation that there had to be a separate organization to accept contracts for legal reasons, I think that would do it. Thanks for fixing my dyslexia with the acronym, by the way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "repeated calls for Carson's firing based on a large list of infractions (such as "mistreating and humiliating students" and "unsportsmanlike conduct"), the largest of which was his 27–27 record": I don't like the repetition of "large", and I don't think the infractions should be in parentheses. How about "repeated calls for Carson's firing. The complaints were based on a long list of infractions, including "mistreating and humiliating students" and "unsportsmanlike conduct", but the most important issue was his 27–27 record."?
  • I copyedited the bit about Fulcher and McAshan, but do we really need it? Is it relevant to Boyd? Maybe mentioning that firing Carson didn't help much is relevant, but I don't see that we need the details after that. I also don't see the need for the "Coaching in Dodd's shadow" link, for the same reason.
  • You know, that's a fair point about the sentence about Fulcher and McAshan. It's not really relevant to Boyd. The sentence before that tells the reader all they need to know. I do like the further link, though, as this section deals almost entirely with Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and there's a decent history section in there that gives more context on that side to interested readers. diff —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but now I'm wondering if it should say "after Carson's departure", not "after Boyd's departure". As for the link, I see your point, but it's good to link directly if possible, and the link doesn't really have anything to do with Boyd so it's a bit odd to see it in this article. I think I'd link from "intense public pressure", but if you want to leave it where it is that's fine -- I would certainly not oppose over that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything struck now; the only remaining issue is the point just above about whether "Boyd's departure" should be "Carson's departure". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • graduating Phi Beta Kappa — reads as if it should be a class of degree, or something like summa cum laude, but surely this is a fraternity? Please clarify for a Brit (:
  • "no appreciable change" in beryllium's atomic structure — atomic structure is the structure of an atom, which you wouldn't expect to change, should this me something like "lattice structure?

I do not see a review for compliance with image policy (just some commentary about cropping). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all five images are used well, and per OTRS tickets are free use. If needed I can have someone with access double-check on their end that these images are good. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_E._Boyd_(scientist)/archive2&oldid=1078801717"