Talk:DU spectrophotometer/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 17:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have started a review of this article. i expect to be able to finish it in a day or two.Edwininlondon (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice piece of work, well done. I have a few main comments and lots of little ones.

Y The lead contains information not given in the body of the article (e.g., 30,000). Everything in lead should be in body.
Y The lead should not have any references, only if highly controversial or a direct quote
YVerifiablity: only a few sources have a page number, many don't, making it hard to verify. For instance, reference 14 is a chapter of 27 pages. Which page has the actual statement about the 19th century?
Y A bit more about the name in the lead: what does DU stand for?
Y On the Talk page I read that there is a lot to be said about the design and limitations of a single beam spectrophotometer. I think this information should be included. -- I've included part of the paragraph in the design section, and cited it.
Y The principles of absorption should be explained upfront, nothing more than a paragraph
I will do a spot check of the sources later, once I see more page numbers. -- I've tried to add page numbers whenever there are references to different pages in the same source document. One confusing thing is that if the source links back to an online edition like google books, that link will only go to one of the referenced pages. So it helps to pay attention to the page number next to the the citation when you click through. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Y maybe mention the year 1941 in the first sentence of the lead. It's a bit late now
Y making only part of Beckman Instruments a wikilink is a bit odd
Y more accurate results --> more than what?
Y weeks or hours to minutes sounds odd, check source - Confirmed by multiple sources; I've added the relevant quotes to the source citations so they are easy to confirm, and also given details of one of the examples, vitamin A, in the introduction to the usage section.
Y "The Beckman Ultraviolet-Visible (UV-Vis) DU spectrophotometer was essential" --> is this a subtype or so? Why the name change? In general I think too often the product is referred to woo cumbersomely; I think "the DU" suffices quite often
Y who is Schmidt? Needs either an introduction or alternatively, make an indirect statement such as "It has been hailed as .."
Y I don't think the quotes in the last sentence of the lead are needed. But if you do quote, then you have to mention who said it. It will make it more cumbersome, so I'd prefer a rephrase -- moved quotes to impact section, summarized in lead.
Y the infobox looks a bit odd, maybe it's the centred bold 'measuring ultraviolet light absorbed"
Y Maybe a Background section would be better as start, including the second paragraph and maybe a bit more context: what for and how, invented by whom? -- Thanks, great suggestion
Y Beckman's strongest competitors --> of the person? or of Beckman Instruments?
Y with a glass Fery prism --> I would hyperlink Fery prism. There is no entry yet, but the redlink will encourage someone to make one
Y DC amplifier --> I'd say direct-coupled amplifier and wikilink it
Y a hydrogen lamp as a light source rather than tungsten --> any reason why?
Y radio oscillators --> wikilink
Y any information about the dates of the models B, C and D would be good. How quick was this development process?
Y MIT wikilink
Y UV-sensitive --> UV has not been explained yet, all we have so far in main body is ultraviolet
Ywhen it was discontinued, the Model DU spectrophotometer --> what happened to the "UV-Vis" bit of the name?
Y needed for ultraviolet-absorption spectrophotometry. --> should be wikilinked earlier
Y It was accurate in both the visible and ultraviolet spectrums. --> that has been said already
Y Model T wikilink
Y "This device forever simplified .. --> who is saying this?
Y Theodore L. Brown needs a descriptor. Colleague?
Y Bioscience wikilink
Y Dr. Robert Coghill, --> why do these scientistS get a Dr whereas the others in the article not? I don't think a Dr is needed here.
Y Synthetic rubber wikilink
Y Office of Rubber Reserve wikilink
Y "infrared spectrophotometers" --> a bit more about how the differed from the DU
Y "measuring wavelengths of hydrocarbons" --> strictly speaking hydrocarbons have no wavelength, do they?
Y catalyzes formation of glucose 1-phosphate, --> should not be a link, already linked through the Cori ester
Y glycogen into glucose and blood glucose -> 3 more links
Y aconitase --> link
Y National Institutes of Health --> link
Y nucleotides link
Y departments of biology, biology, --> duplication
Y George O. Burr --> am I right to infer that by not wikilinking this you think this person is not notable, whereas the others that have been redlinked ( Robert Coghill, Dr. Andrew Moyer, lab bacteriologist Mary Hunt,[28][29][30] Frank H. Stodola and Morris E. Friedkin; Wilbur I. Kaye) are? I can't judge this, but wanna make sure you are consistent.
Y Beckman Industries --> is that right, or is it Beckman Instruments?
Y I am left with one question, which you may have sources for: what is used today by scientists?
Y Other nice things to add: how important was this product for the company? Was it its flagship product? Why was production halted?
Y checked online sources for all citations - Some of the CHF sources have disappeared or changed due to CHF's website redesign. Hopefully oral history will be put online again soon. Removed bad links. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So to summarise: nearly there. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do another complete read-through in a day or two, after a break from this. The library's digitization team is scanning several illustrations I've asked for, so I should be able to add them next week. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets all the criteria and is now a Good Article. Great work! Edwininlondon (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Edwininlondon:, Thanks so much for all the input for the review. I've just added the illustrations from the Archives. Many thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]