Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Glicken/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2014 [1].

Harry Glicken edit

Harry Glicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ceranthor 19:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A brilliant guy who just rubbed people the wrong way, Glicken was a first-rate scientist and one strange dude. Besides the first image in the infobox (still searching for its original source), I think this is all set to become an FA. ceranthor 19:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments: I intended to peer-review this, but got caught up with other things. Here are a few initial comments, concerning the lead. I'll add a few more, later.

  • "notably blamed himself" - lose the adverb, per WP:EDITORIAL
  • "...who had switched shifts with Glicken so that he could attend an interview." Presently ambiguous as to who went to the interview. Suggest replace "he" with "the latter"
  • "per his parents' wishes": it would be better to replace the informal shorthand "per" with its actual meaning: "in accordance with".
  • "Despite a long-term interest in working for the United States Geological Survey, Glicken never received a permanent post there because employees found him bizarre". I think "bizarre" is too loaded a word in an encyclopedia article, especially with no further explanation. Perhaps "because of a reputation for eccentricity" or some such.
  • There's a vastly overlong sentence, beginning "Conducting independent research..." that needs subdividing.

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be resolved. ceranthor 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
  • "in 1980" followed by "In 1980"
  • Over-referencing in first line of "Early work" – 2 citations for his graduation, separate citations for "graduate student" and Univ. of California.
  • "previously dormant" – just "dormant"
  • "He became so distraught that he refused to accept Johnston's death,[4] requiring comfort from Don Swanson to eventually calm down." Kind of clunky. May I suggest: "In his distraught state, Glicken refused to accept Johnston's death, and was comforted by Swanson before calming down".
  • We could do with a few more date indicators: "the summer after the eruption" makes a look back to find the year, and thereafter, zilch in this section
  • Again "who found him bizarre". See my comment above over the use of this word. "Who found his behavioral oddities unsettling" would I think be acceptable.
  • Suggest avoid "...Unzen. Unzen..."
  • I wonder why you've pipe-linked "eruptive activity" in relation to Mt Unzen rather than with the earlier example of Mt St Helens
  • "near the end of May." – year?
  • "the niche grew" – unclear, further explanation required
  • "extremely detailed and comprehensive work" –delete the adverb

Will finish tomorrow Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think I addressed all the clear-cut ones. Two ones I just want to make sure I took care of:
  1. The dates. In general the dates are hazy for Glicken's research, but he basically spent summer 1980 through 1989 working at St. Helens as far as I can discern. If I need to dig around for more clear dates, feel free to ask me to do so. Did some digging, and found out that the latest source referenced in his report is from 1986. This would imply he was done with all of his research by 1986, but that would be original research unless I can find it elsewhere, I should think.
  2. The niche. I tweaked this to say that research in the niche grew, but essentially this sentence means that volcanic debris avalanches became recognized as a widespread phenomenon and he inspired people to conduct research in such a specialized field.
Thanks for your comments so far! ceranthor 02:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final
  • "...was later published in 1996 a single report by his acquaintances..." – is there an "as" missing after 1996? I would actually make this a separate sentence: "It was later published" etc
  • "comprises" rather than "compiles" (reports don't "compile")
  • "painstakingly" – another editorial adverb for the chop
  • "In his work for the report..." Verbose: either delete, or "In the report,..."
  • "Glicken's father, Milton" – no need to name him again
  • "After ... says" does not work. "After ... said". I'm not sure that Dad's words are worth quoting verbatim, though
  • Likewise, "keen" is a commonplace term that shouldn't be in quotes.
  • Conversely, if you are going to use the word "crazy", then this should be in quotes, provided the word is used in the source. If it isn't the word should not be used.
  • The examples of his odd social behavior look out of place in a "Legacy" section. Here's a suggestion: change section title to "Tributes and legacy"; drop the last anecdotal three sentences; move the sentence beginning "Chatty, noted for ..." up so that it becomes the second sentence in the paragraph. Then move the whole paragraph so that it is the first, rather than the last, in the section. That way, the section builds towards a summary of Glicken's achievements and status, rather than ending anti-climactically, with examples of his oddness.
  • Footnote 1: I wonder if it is worth including a footnote to highlight such a small difference in the death toll between the two sources? I think I'd just say 42 or 43 in the text, and cite both sources.

This is an engaging account of the short life of someone who clearly made an impressive contribution to volcanology – a subject of which I have no knowledge, but the necessary technical detail is clearly explained. Once my remaining concerns are addressed, I see no barriers to the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've taken care of these all appropriately. I replaced crazy with a quote, which refers to him as a nut. Thanks so much for all your help, Brian! ceranthor 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
  • Ref 11: the titlein the ref does not mach the title in the source. Is the link to the right article?
  • Ref 33: appears to link to an unrelated article
  • Be consistent in including publisher locations in source book descriptions.

Otherwise all sources look of appropraite quality, are properly formatted, and all links are working. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to the sources fixes mentioned above. I have not checked images. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be fixed. I replaced the USGS ref with the newly-linked GVP page. I hope you don't mind that I changed your header to a ; style heading. Thanks so much for your input and support, Brian. ceranthor 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Crisco. I'm working on the first two images, which are both from USGS websites which were recently redesigned and thus it'll take me a little while to find the new location for all this information. I'll get back to you on the third image. ceranthor 04:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking for information on the first two. As for the third one, I'm a bit confused with the second half of your comment. Which volcano do you mean... the one in the image? ceranthor 02:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the engraved volcano. Someone may take issue with the photograph affixed to the plaque, but I say it's easily de minimis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think that's resolved then. As for the first two images, Nikkimaria has attested to their integrity here. What else needs to be done? ceranthor 02:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. For the first image, I think we still need an information template (source, when the image was taken, etc.). For the third... I think it's best if we replaced it with something else, to be safe. Do you have any other images? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco prose comments
    • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, this should preferably have only two paragraphs in the lead.
    • To date, Glicken and Johnston remain the only two American volcanologists known to have perished in volcanic eruptions. - What exactly is "two" adding? Not particularly necessary, in my opinion. Also, "To date" is when exactly?
    • Glicken accrued expertise in the field of volcanic debris avalanches. He also wrote several major publications on the topic, including his doctoral dissertation based on his research at St. Helens titled "Rockslide-debris Avalanche of May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens Volcano, Washington" that initiated widespread interest in the phenomenon. Since being published posthumously by Glicken's colleagues in 1996, the report has been acknowledged by many other publications on debris avalanches. - this kinda renders the above clause "noted for his expertise on volcanic debris avalanches." unnecessary, at least partially. Perhaps a way to be less redundant?
    • Absolutely nothing about his childhood? Why he went into volcanology?
    • During the summer after the eruption in May of 1980, - clunky and against WP:SEASONS. "In mid-1980" is so much simpler
    • I think linking US states is WP:overlinking. Thoughts?
    • Glicken quickly earned recognition as the first geologist to explain the creation of hummock fields near tall volcanoes. - what does "quickly" add here? I think you could lose it without changing the meaning too much
    • In the years following the eruption, ... - this paragraph might look better in the next section, especially since that's only a single paragraph
    • In the months after its first activity, it had been erupting sporadically, - why the past perfect continuous? The simple past tense would work as well and be less complicated
    • 41–42 people died in the incident - Recommend a footnote as to why estimates vary
    • seminal - sounds weaselly. Better to have a direct quote
    • being considered one of the foremost experts in the field. - by whom?
    • One of his friends writes, - who?
Source doesn't say. Just "'Harry was a character his whole life,' recalled a friend from the St. Helens days."
    • that he was "totally absorbed" with volcanology. - again, why?
Source doesn't say.
    • When did the university establish the fund?
Source doesn't say.
    • I'd use "Cite Journal" for his major publications. Keeps them nice and neat. Kinda like Lie Kim Hok's bibliography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crisco! I'm on vacation at the moment, but I'll be sure to get to them by this weekend. A response to one of your comments... the 41-42 estimate had a footnote, but brianboulton recommended removing it, so I'd rather not readd it. ceranthor 23:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet at the time he commented it was 42–43? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was just a typo... the sources say either 41 or 42. ceranthor 15:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly done with these prose comments. In the process of sorting out responses to a few, and fixing the rest! :) Nothing about his childhood, unfortunately... people knew him as an adult and for his career. "To date" is a phrase meaning to current time, so I think it's fine as is. ceranthor 15:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To date" means whenever you wrote that text, so something like July 2014. If in, say October 2015, another volcanologist is killed (hopefully not; this is just an example), and the text reads "to date" until January 2016, then it is not accurate. There's a more detailed overview at Wikipedia:As of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not a big deal. ceranthor 15:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay everything including images should be fixed. I don't have a substitute for the third image, so I guess I'll have to leave that section without an image. ceranthor 16:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I've made one further change (WP:SEASON applies to Summer, not May). Support on prose and images. Looks like a good biography of this interesting individual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, Crisco, and of course your support! ceranthor 03:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "and was comforted by Swanson before calming down": I can't get an image here; what does the source say about this?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Lively writing. Very little for a copyeditor to do. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank, and thanks very much for your support. As for your comment, I changed it to "had to be comforted". The source says "Early in the evening Swanson was asked to talk with the man who had been on duty [...] Glicken was overwhelmed with guilt and grief. Swanson did not particularly want to talk to the inconsolable man. [...] 'It's not your fault,' Swanson said." That, of course skips some of the fluff, but that's the essence of what Parchman says. ceranthor 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Thanks again to you, Brian and Crisco for making the job easy here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for the compliment. :) ceranthor 20:46, 13 August 2014 (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/Harry_Glicken/archive1&oldid=1086353656"