Talk:Vitold Belevitch/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
From my brief overview, I see no major problems, but I will take some time to comb through the details. It looks to be an interesting article. --Tea with toast (話) 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Issue needing to be addresses
editEverything is looking pretty good; I've only had to make a few copy edits to the text. There is one worrisome sentence in the "Education" section: "In 1960 he became an extraordinary professor.". The use of the word "extraordinary" is unencyclopedic (a peacock term). The word should be replaced if not eliminated. Did he become a tenured professor in 1960? Was he given some sort of honour? I do not have the Vandewalle text, so I can not check for myself.
I will place the status of this review "on hold" until this can be addressed. I hope this can be done in a week's time. --Tea with toast (話) 01:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tea with toast, the Vandewalle text is available here from an ftp site on the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. "Extraordinary professor" is the translation of buitengewoon hoogleraar, a professor on the same level as gewoon hoogleraar, but also working outside the university in private or public sector (see nl:Hoogleraar#In België). -- SchreyP (messages) 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, SchreyP, for your response. Do you think we could translate the word as "Associate Professor" or "Adjunct Professor" for this article? I don't think "Extraordinary Professor" is a good translation. --Tea with toast (話) 18:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tea with toast, reading the definitions the most close is Adjunct Professor. Belevitch's primary job was director of "Laboratoire de Recherche MBLE", later called "Philips Research Laboratories Belgium", till 1984. He started initially as part-time professor in 1953, and became buitengewoon hoogleraar in 1960. In Belgium this means that you have the rang/level of a full professor, but you are doing this only part-time, sometimes even free of charge (not clear in this context). His main job was outside the university. If you would allow rang in the title, the more precise would be Adjunct Full Professor in US terms. I hope this helps? -- SchreyP (messages) 19:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this is what is meant, it is not a peacock term. I have now wikilinked it to an article that explains the term. SpinningSpark 19:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- According to Professor#Netherlands, the term "buitengewoon hoogleraar" is better translated to "Special Professor". I have changed this in the article. If there are any further changes made to this section, please keep the untranslated Dutch "buitengewoon hoogleraar" in the article. With that, I can now pass the article!--Tea with toast (話) 14:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this is what is meant, it is not a peacock term. I have now wikilinked it to an article that explains the term. SpinningSpark 19:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tea with toast, reading the definitions the most close is Adjunct Professor. Belevitch's primary job was director of "Laboratoire de Recherche MBLE", later called "Philips Research Laboratories Belgium", till 1984. He started initially as part-time professor in 1953, and became buitengewoon hoogleraar in 1960. In Belgium this means that you have the rang/level of a full professor, but you are doing this only part-time, sometimes even free of charge (not clear in this context). His main job was outside the university. If you would allow rang in the title, the more precise would be Adjunct Full Professor in US terms. I hope this helps? -- SchreyP (messages) 19:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, SchreyP, for your response. Do you think we could translate the word as "Associate Professor" or "Adjunct Professor" for this article? I don't think "Extraordinary Professor" is a good translation. --Tea with toast (話) 18:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Final review
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Well done!
- Pass or Fail: