Talk:George Schaller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	George Schaller has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 21, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

[edit] snow leopard

I saw a show on PBS or discovery channel within the past two years or so in which a team including several westerners observed and photographed snow leopards in the wild, so I think that part of the article is no longer true. -- Akb4 09:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified in the article: "Schaller is one of only two Westerners known to have seen a snow leopard in Nepal between 1950 and 1978." so this is no longer an issue. Ariel♥Gold 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

I'm putting this up for GA status: Doing a little run down of the criteria for my own reference here:

1. It is well written.

   Y I think so.

   (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct;

   Y I believe so.

   (b) it complies with the manual of style

   Y I believe so.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   Y Yes - In-line citations, no original research.

3. It addresses the major aspects of the topic;

   Y Yes

4. It is neutral

   Y Yes

5. It is stable

   Y Yes

6. It is illustrated

   Y Yes - Image is from Commons (uploaded in 2005), and has been reviewed for licensing info.

I'll look forward to any additional issues I've overlooked, and thank you for taking the time to review this article! Ariel♥Gold 03:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section on the honors and awards he has received? --Agüeybaná 02:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as they are covered in the infobox, I thought that would be redundant. Should I add the section in anyway? Ariel♥Gold 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel it would be appropriate, but certainly not entirely necessary. The article is great. If you can find specific information on why he received each award, please add a new section. But, if you can't, then don't. As you said, it would be redundant to just list the awards all over again. --Agüeybaná 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

DUHHHHHH Just smack me, for some reason I didn't close a ref tag, and that whole section that was there already, was hidden, lol. I fixed it. Take a look now. Ariel♥Gold 03:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

This is how I believe this article compares to the six Good Article criteria:

1. Well written?: Good prose, and no major grammatical mistakes, although I think all the one-sentence paragraphs in the "Conservation career" section could be joined...

2. Factually accurate?: All claims sourced.

3. Broad in coverage?: All major points presented.

4. Neutral point of view?: All major views presented.

5. Article stability? No recent edit wars or content disputes.

6. Images?: Free image with all documentation OK.

Passed. Feel free to take it to Good Article reassessment if you disagree. Great work! :-) --Agüeybaná 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

YAY! Thanks for reviewing it, Aguey! (And for helping me figure out my silly mistake above about the Awards section, lol.) Ariel♥Gold 20:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)