Talk:Martin Evans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

[edit] Statistical layout in sections

Hi. Just thought I would pass on some advice about the format of the article in the two post-lead sections ("Career" and "Awards"). They really need to be turned into correct prose, rather than the mechanical "timeline" layout as exists at the time of this posting. This opinion is offered based on what the Manual of Style: Guide to Layout recommends, and so I have tagged for conversion of timeline to prose accordingly. This is not critique, merely an appeal for interested parties to improve the display and readability of the piece. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the career section might be better as prose. Perhaps, the best format for the awards section is a chronological list. Snowman (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would concede that. However, turning the awards section into a prosaic piece automatically increases wordcount and section 'bulk', making the possibility of start-Class even more likely. I would like to leave the tag in that section also, to see if anyone takes it on. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, I have removed the banner from the awards section and joined up the list in the career section. I think, the awards section comprises a series of time related items that are best presented in a list. If you are correct, I am disappointed that word count in itself helps an article get a better rating. Where is word count officially listed at a rating criteria? Snowman (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wordcount as in "a stub is an account comprising of a few words about a subject". The most important consideration is the sectioning and the content within. But it is no good having sections containing a paragraph each, for instance (not that this is true of Martin Evans of course). The length of the article, ultimately, has a great bearing on whether it is judged a stub or a start. More in-depth coverage, coupled with absolute compliance with Wikipedia MoS takes it up to B, and so on. I didn't mean for it to sound like length is everything! Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You conceded that a list format is ok for the awards section, so could you give a list of the problems with this page that are preventing it getting a start class grade. Snowman (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem if this was now rated start-Class - since the de-bulleting of the Career section, it reads very nicely. For me, it may be borderline start, although I have addressed one issue, that of the inclusion in the lead-in of family-based info which goes on to refer indirectly to him. I have therefore created a new section, in line with what Wikipedia expects to see, called Family life, making a clear distinction between what he is notable for in essence (the lead-in), his career (sectioned as such), and other matters to do with him, such as family, hobbies, that sort of thing. The info refers directly to his family life and that's why I started the new section headed as such. If you were able to expand a little upon the family aspect, or add in hobbies and interests (perhaps renaming the section to reflect this extra varied content), then all to the good, and the article begins to head towards a "B" rating, in my opinion.

I hope this is clearer understood. There are no "problems" as such with Martin Evans the article, and my contribution has never been included as critique (which I did say earlier), so if you were now to change the class to "start", I wouldn't say another word. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is helpful. I do not have any more information to add to the new section, at the present time. Would it be worth putting it back on the list for an assessment by an editor who has not contributed? Snowman (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is not much response at Requests currently, so no need, I have just willingly done the assessment based on what I have had to say here. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)