Talk:Boyce McDaniel

Boyce McDaniel has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 27, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 15, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Physics: Biographies Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/02/5.16.02/McDaniel-obit.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Bilby (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to remove the content again, I'm afraid. There were multiple articles used, but the problem was the same - the text was nearly identical to the sources being employed. Unfortunately it will need a full rewrite, as the bulk of the article suffered from the problem. - Bilby (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Bilby for working with me to come up with compliant content. Racepacket (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boyce McDaniel/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in at this time. In disclosure, the nominator gave a tough and thorough GA review on an article (SS Edmund Fitzgerald) which I nominated and we were thankul for for the toughness and thoroughness; it subsequently achieved FA; I hope to return the favor with a tough and thorough review. One other disclaimer, I am weak on reference formatting expertise, but as I understand it that is not a GA criteria. I'll have a preliminary review in today. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect no less. Thank you for taking the time. Racepacket (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts after a quick pass[edit]

At this preliminary stage, I'm making some suggestions for either changes or to hear your thoughts if you do not think they are feasible or worth doing. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add a bit to the lead - like another small paragraph?

How about:

During World War II, McDaniel used his electronics expertise to help develop cyclotrons used to separate Uranium isotopes. McDaniel is also noted as having performed the final check on the first atomic bomb prior to its detonation in the Trinity test.

Looks good to me. North8000 (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Racepacket (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A major thread of his work is involvement in ever more powerful accelerators which presumably also followed a time progression. The article also gave this type of information, leading me to try to follow it both lines. Have yet to figure out what to suggest, but I had to read that part of the Biography section three times to really figure out the picture.

Each successor accelerator was state of the art. Here is the chronology:

Looks good, but how about a bit more of a title saying that these are the ones he was involved with /led? North8000 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerators That McDaniel Helped Develop
Power	Year
300 MeV Cornell	1947
1 GeV Cornell	1957
2 GeV Cornell	1964
10 GeV Cornell	1967
18 GeV (effective) CESR	1979
300 GeV FermiLab	1973

I am not sure what to do with this. I am placing it in the article and you are free to move it or delete it. Racepacket (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where the article says: "he had increased the power of Fermilab's accelerator from 20 GeV to 300 GeV", this was a huge project involving lots of people....article makes it sound like he did it single-handedly. And once we know he didn't do it single-handedly, then the question arises as to what his role was in it. If accurate, maybe say "under his leadership: or "he led the effort" etc......

He led the effort would be fine. In reality, the project was stalled and Wilson brought McDaniel in to fix it.

Resolved North8000 (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"became the world's leading source of information about one of the fundamental...." sounds categorical & extraordinary where it should either get a cite or be dialed back a bit.

Would "primary" be better than "leading?" The fact is that during this period, Cornell was the source of experimental data on the b-quark. The other source was Fermilab, where it was discovered in 1977.

I think that would put it on a bit safer ground for not requiring a cite. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.(Racepacket)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about adding a 2nd image? Should be relatively easy, could be of one of the noted atom smasher facilities, or of the Trinity test?

Added

Resolved North8000 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a flow standpoint, what do you think of a final sentence stating his death, with a fact or two (e.g. where) beyond the date?

How about:

McDaniel died of a heart attack in Ithaca, New York at the age 84.<ref name=obit/>

Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Racepacket (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved North8000 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says 1972, Wilson invited McDaniel to run a big chunk of Fermilab. But the most recent mention of Wilson in the article was only as McDaniel's predecessor at LNS. Sounds confusing. Was Wilson running fermilab? If so it should say.

How about,

Wilson and McDaniel continued to collaborate at Cornell until Wilson left to head Fermilab in 1967.

as the new first sentence of the Fermilab paragraph? Wilson was the founding director of Fermilab and was running it at the time that McDaniel was there. Wilson brought in McDaniel to troubleshoot the hardware.

Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. (Racepacket)

Resolved North8000 (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes, discussion and conclusion after further review[edit]

All of the items which I brought up, including those that there only suggestions were addressed. I conducted a more thorough review and do not have any additional items. So I pass this article. As this is only my 2nd GA review, it may take me a bit to handle the details properly Nice article, and interesting article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment[edit]

Our article devotes a subsection to sexual harassment allegations against McDaniel. Of the two sources, one does not seem to name McDaniel at all; the other recounts the victim's account but does not endorse it in its own voice. Neither supports the section's content, which is in fact contradicted by both that source and what the sexual harassment article says about the term. This seems rather WP:COATRACK-y to me; at the very least it would need to be rewritten and should probably not receive a subsection of its own in light of WP:WEIGHT. For now I'll remove it. Huon (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source by Carrie N. Baker is also cited in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Farley. Why do you believe the section contradicts what the sexual harassment article says about the term? How would you suggest it be re-written? The source which does not name him gives the details of the case, and not his name, but that he is the accused perpetrator in the case is evident in the first case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:B407:2A00:E1F5:D001:6A1E:8511 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]