Talk:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Hello! I will be the reviewer of this article, I am currently working on the Nobel Prize article so I know a bit of the subject. I will list problems I find, please answer directly below my comments so we can easily see what has been done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not the major contributor to this article. Have you asked of the other editors permission for nominating this article? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that I had to ask anyone to nominate an article. Anyway, I am a major contributor [1] and the next three after me haven't contributed since 2007 or 2008. (Most of what was in the article when I started was boiler plate from the other Nobel articles.) Should I ask them? MacDaid (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No there is no need for that. However, the nominator for this review is User:Colormere not you.Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was working on the article and saw the GA Review appear on my watchlist. Now I see that someone else nominated it on the GAN nomination without asking me. So, I guess I should but out of this discussion. However, I am very interested in the article. Can I continue to work on it if it is nominated by someone else? MacDaid (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody owns an article so yes. However, since you are the major contributor you are perhaps not very happy (well, I wouldn't be) with User:Colormere nominating it instead of you. He has only done a couple of edits to the article. You can stop his nomination though if you feel you are the correct person to nominate. It does not really seem as he is a big contributor so I would oppose him if I were you. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do I oppose him? How is that done? What is the process? Also, could you show me how to do footnotes the way you did them on the Nobel Prize article? Is there any place that is explained? MacDaid (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I might have explained this badly. There is no real way of "opposing" him in that sense. If you absolutely do not like this you could ask me to leave him a note on his talk page to ask if he could change you to the nominator instead. If he agrees to that you will become the nominator. If he do not agree we can't really "stop" the nomination. I will continue to review the article and list problems below and everyone can help solving the comments. About the notes, at the moment I am kind of busy but might have more time later today. Please leave a note on my talkpage so I will remember to explain it. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wonderful if you do that. He may agree as he doesn't seem very interested in the article. MacDaid (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is ok with me, as real life is too pressing right now for me to continue as nominator. Thanks! Colormere (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

I am starting with some general comments and questions. If you have any questions feel free to ask them here.

  • The first image can be inside the infobox. Also it would probably be better to use the free File:Nobel Prize.png instead.
Done. MacDaid (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should summarise the whole article. Thus references is normally not used very often there.
Done. MacDaid (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to introduce who Alfred Nobel is. Check the Nobel Prize to see how the background could look like.
I added a little description. Is that enough? MacDaid (talk)'
Not quite I am afraid. Who was he? People should not need to click the wikilink to understand. You can write, for example, that he was a Swedish engineer and created the dynamite etc.
I had " Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite" in the lead; I have now repeated it in the body. Anything else? MacDaid (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. That sentence could perhaps be copyedited a bit, perhaps split up or something.
Copy edited. MacDaid (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Laureates" section: Which prizes are included and which are not? A clear guideline would be needed. (For example, you could mention the first 3 prizes and the last 3)
Here I tried to give an over all view. Then I included the first award and the rest are "firsts" of some sort or make a point. I didn't want to get into long descriptions of various awards that are described elsewhere. MacDaid (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to have such a section without any guidelines. Since there is over 100 laureates there has to be some way of knowing who should be in that section. It is hard to just say the "most notable" since it is hard to measure.
What do you suggest then? MacDaid (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the 3 first and the 3 most recent?
Added. MacDaid (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "The Nobel Award Ceremony" section is a bit short. Please expand it.
I'll try to fix it. None of my references covered the ceremony as it pertains to Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. But I can find boiler plate general stuff about the ceremony and add it. Is that what you mean? MacDaid (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Since the ceremony is same for all prizes awarded in Sweden something could probably be taken from the Nobel Prize and be slightly rewritten.
Ok, I'll copy something. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not interested in boiler plate stuff unrelated to this prize, so I hate to do that. But I will. MacDaid (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unrelated to how the prize is awarded. There is no need to cut and copy I am just saying it is a possibility. But the info needs to be there nonetheless.
Well, I can't copy/paste from the Nobel Prize article, as the only reference is to a December 2009 newspaper article. There is nothing else I can find that even mentions it. I did a Google search and only found something about the Peace Prize banquet and a lottery that Swedish students can enter to go. MacDaid (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added stuff from an article in India. It has banquet details that relate to the Swedish banquet. MacDaid (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book written by Levinovitz contains some info I think. I rather concerned that much is a quote. Try to tell it in "your own" words.
Rewrote in my own words. The book contains nothing pertaining to this particular prize, just boiler plate stuff that isn't really relevant to this article. I tried as much as possible to concentrate on this prize alone, and not add general stuff that is in all the Nobel articles. MacDaid (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finding info on this prize alone on this matter will probably be hard, if next to impossible. Especially since they all (expect Peace) share the same ceremony and banquet. But it doesn't matter as long as the result is good.
  • Be consistent in how you cite books. Compare for example ref 4 with 33 and 34. Perhaps all could be formatted as 33 and 34, then it would be similar to the way refs are formatted in the Nobel Prize.
I couldn't figure out how you did the references in Nobel Prize. It's a complete mystery. I'll fix the 33 and 34 so they are like the rest. MacDaid (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to explain. They are getting more and more common since they link to the book directly. This is how an example looks <ref>{{cite book|author=[[#Levinovitz|Levinovitz, Agneta Wallin]]|year=2001|page=5}}</ref> the author is a piped link to the book. You give every book a name (e.g. |name=Levinovitz}} ) and the first part in the wikilink is that name. The next is the author's name.
I'm getting burned out and I'm not up to figuring out a new referencing system and implementing it for this article. I'm sorry. I did try. MacDaid (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, no need to apologise. The decision is yours. It doesn't really matter as long as it is consistent.
  • There is not many images. Try to add more free-to-use images to the article.
I added some images. MacDaid (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could still do with more.
OK MacDaid (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added several more pictures. MacDaid (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what good the two quotes do. Certainly not the "J. Michael Bishop" one.
I like the quotes because the public misunderstands Nobel's intentions often, hence the endless controversies. But I will remove them. MacDaid (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
  • Overall much could probably be expanded like the Controversies page (although you should probably only include the most notable/controversial ones). There is much good literature on the bibliography of Nobel Prize (some of those books is already here I see), you could check them and see if you could expand more.
Perhaps you have some suggestions. I have already combed my references for those pertaining to this particular prize and added what I could. Nobel Prize controversies is not very helpful and not well cited. I have already included what I can from that article. Do you have some ideas? MacDaid (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to take a closer look if I get time. But I am sure there are more controversies, try to take another look if possible.
I'll try, but the good article criteria are to be "broad", not "comprehensive". So I don't feel a comprehensive coverage of controversies is necessary. The controversies get very repetitive, and often devolve into a "he said" "she said" sort of situation that end up giving you a bad feeling about the Nobel prize in general and scientific academia in particular. Writing this article has taken away a lot of the Nobel Prize mystic for me. Like the brouhaha about Rosalind Franklin, It turned out that no one had ever nominated her for the prize when she was alive. MacDaid (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the Nobel Prize article, all that are discussed have to do with the Peace Prize. MacDaid (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that (it is after all I who have written much of it). The difference is this: On the Nobel Prize page only the most notable and most controversial Nobel Prize controversies may be. Most of them happens to be Peace Prize awards. On this page the most notable Medicine Prize awards can be housed. I should perhaps have phrased my comment more like a question. Are you sure there are no other controveries that should be included here?
Yes, per the literature I have reviewed. I have given the foremost examples of the types of controversies that have occurred, rather than an exhaustive list. Many are "in group" arguments that are not of wide interest, and the recitation of them easily becomes a boring list, I think. But the ones I have encountered, I have included. MacDaid (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed many of the "Controversies" as farther down in this review, you complained about them. Don't know how to satisfy you. This is not an FAC and this articles should not be compared to you FAC for Nobel Prize. MacDaid (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

Done. MacDaid (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel the first paragraph gives a good enough explanation of who Nobel was. It could probably be more comprehensive. It will also need some copyediting to be more engaging.
Copied from your article, as I have done the best I can on my own. MacDaid (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "my" article. Nobody owns an article. Try to re-write it so it isn't the exact same thing.
  • "Nobel requested in his last will and testament that his money be..." His death could probably be explained more clearly.
Done. MacDaid (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per his will, only select persons are eligible to nominate individuals for the award. These include members of select academies in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Finland, as well as certain individuals affiliated with prestigious institutions in other lands. Past Nobel laureates may also nominate." does this really belong here? Perhaps better to place this in nomination and selection
Done. MacDaid (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the last paragraph: You probably only need to mention Karolinska Institutet, not the other prize awarding bodies.
Done. MacDaid (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4, 10, 11 and 13 are from another encyclopaedias, it is not preferred. Articles should be based on reliable second-hand sources. Encyclopaedias are third-hand.
Done. MacDaid (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 and 2 should be split up so there is one ref for each page interval.
Don't know how to do this. I think I would have to learn a new citation method and redo the whole article MacDaid (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks done to me now.
  • Ref 9 should be be in the bibliography as the other books.
Done MacDaid (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not very much info about the Nobel Foundation. More should be added.
Tell me what to add. I tried to understand all the various Foundations, Institutes etc. and it is beyond me. I really wanted to concentrate on the prize itself. I am sorry that you want all the boiler plate stuff in the article. I don't agree. I have implemented your suggestions as best I can. Perhaps this article is not worthy of a GA. I am willing to withdraw it. MacDaid (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That it was formed and what it is should at least be mentioned.

Nomination and selection[edit]

  • "The public expected Jonas Salk or Albert Sabin to win for their development of the polio vaccines, but instead the award went to John Enders, Thoma..." when was this? And what does it have to do with the award process?
That was left over from when you made me remove the part about the public having a different perception of the prize. Have decided to leave the parts in the article that interest me so I may restore some that you requested I remove. MacDaid (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the quote?
  • There seem to be some information about eligibility and medicine v physiology. Could it perhaps be an own sub-section (under this section) instead of mixing it into the text?
No. It is a very confusing topic as this prize overlaps with chemistry and biology. Some of the winners are chemists, biologists, medical doctors, research scientist. There is not a clear definition of what goes in this category. I removed at your suggestion some of the explanation for the confusion. Removing the citations to Nobel.org removed a lot of information. MacDaid (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall this section could need a re-structuring to make it easier to understand in what order everything happens etc. Try using === Subsection ===
Do you still think it needs subsections, as most was removed at your request for being referenced to Nobel.org.? MacDaid (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ask you to remove anything. I asked you to replace references.
  • Sources from the Nobelprize.org is a first-hand source. In almost every case those will need to go with a reliable second-hand source.
This cannot be done. I will remove all the information sourced to Nobelprize.org MacDaid (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can. Most of the information on the nobelprize.org can be found elsewhere. Don't remove the information, replace the refs.
Esuzu, What is your policy-based justification for this unusual complaint? WP:PRIMARY explicitly permits the appropriate use of first-hand sources like this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17 does not cover "A maximum of three Nobel Laureates and two different works may be selected for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine."
Removed it as requested MacDaid (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust your judgment on this issue. Be specific " Some copy-editing would be needed as well" is not helpful. MacDaid (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and fail the article. MacDaid (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prizes[edit]

  • "(Now the prize is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Medicine.)" Now as in from on now in the article?
Removed as requested
It was a question, not a request for removal.
  • "Mint of Norway since 1902" this has nothing to do with this article
Removed. MacDaid (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • who is the "the Genius of Medicine"?
I don't know. I removed at your suggestion the quotation explaining what it means. Removed since you disapprove. MacDaid (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I did not ask you to remove anything. But it needs to be explained.
  • The Physiology or Medicine diplomas always has citations on them what I can gather.
I don't think that is true, as the sources are less specific and say "usually". You could use OR and gather from your own observations. Please specify a citation if you think this is true. MacDaid (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, on a closer look the citation I looked at did not say "always." (Neither did it say "usually" but it is better to be safe than sorry)
  • Typo in ref 20
I don't see a typo in ref 20. Could you be more specific. MacDaid (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again I request that you be more specific. MacDaid (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the reference again, I think it has been removed.

Ceremony[edit]

  • The first paragraph is still a big citation.
There is nothing specific to say about it. I could copy more boiler plate but there is nothing specific to this prize. MacDaid (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of the Nobel lectures?
I don't see anyone mentioning the lectures. Most for the Physiology and Medicine prize, there is not much to say. I have read them. Just mention them? Say that they exist? All discussion of the lectures are about the Peace Prize usually. And I would have to use the Nobel Prize site, which you are saying is not good enough. I notices that you had next to nothing to say about the lectures in your much more general article about Nobel Prize MacDaid (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will at least need a mention. The nobelprize.org will be no problem to use here.
  • The section could need more references.
Please point me to some references, as I requested previously. The ceremony is covered by gossip sites and such but not by serious publications like The New York Times. I found the India source on your request. MacDaid (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be OK with that ref.
  • Please add at least one image relating to this if possible.
If you put one in the Nobel Prize article, I will use it. I have only seen "celebrity coverage" photos that would never pass Fair Use. I noticed you have none in Nobel Prize except those pertaining to the Peace Prize, which is not helpful to me. MacDaid (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently you do not mention the Award ceremony itself, only the banquet.

Laureates[edit]

  • Watch for clamming text between two images.
You wanted more images, and the images have to go in the section in which they are mentioned. What do you suggest?
Template:Multiple image can be used if necessary. If it seems impossible I can see what I can do.
  • "Thus, longevity is an asset in winning the Nobel Prize," seems kind of awkward and un-encyclopaedic
It is a fact. MacDaid (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a way perhaps. It is not encyclopaedic at least.
  • The section is kind of messy, use sub-section headers. Also, information of the "same kind" should be places together. For example the 2009 prize is mentioned in one paragraph and then 2008 and 2007 in another.
I will work on this, but as far as this review is concerned, I am resigned that I cannot meet your standards.

It is better to place them under one sub-section, called for example "Recent Laureates".

OK. Will do.
  • Same problem with the refs here as earlier. It will need secondary sources.
Most sources use the Nobel site as a source, and you are saying that is not good enough. So I am resigned to your failing this article. MacDaid (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

  • Needs more references.
Tell me what you feel is not referenced properly and I will remove it. Or add {{citations needed}} tags. Give me a clue what you mean. MacDaid (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to mention that it is the Physiology or Medicine Prize, it is rather obvious.
OK. The "rather obvious" is removed. MacDaid (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-editing needed here as well to make it easier to read
Please be more specific. "Copy editing needed" is not at all specific and gives me no clue what you are having difficult with. The information is arrange chronologically. Do you have a better suggestion? MacDaid (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

This article has good stuff and is well written in places. In some places it is kind of messy and the structure could be better. Better references will be needed. There are many good ones, especially in the books if you look closely enough. Good luck!

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Would you explain which of the GA criteria is being violated here? And please give me specific examples of prose problems.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All the references you complained about have been removed, as have the information they sourced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Would you be specific here, as I have no clue what you want, except more stuff on the banquet which I cannot find references for.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Could you be specific here? Which images do you have a problem with. Which captions? The captions are referenced either in the caption or in the article. Could you explain what you are having problems with? No images are required for a GA article. The lack of images is not a reason to fail. I removed several images because you complained about "sandwiching". Please be reasonable. What is your complaint exactly? I removed all images that were not PD or have an Otrs ticket.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
I wish to have this article failed. I want to continue to work on it, but I feel your requirements are unreasonable. I plead with you to just fail it and release me from this review. Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may stop any time you want. It will be on hold for a week since somebody else might see this review and fix the issues. If not, it will be failed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me specific examples of the faults you find with the article. Please do not insist on information for which I cannot find sources which you will accept. MacDaid (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making everything bold, it clutters. I am sorry that you can't find sources or information good enough. But that does not mean it is not there. Use google and google books. There is reliable information out there.
Also, there is no need to remove all the information, replace the references.
  • Note Please read the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. They are not the same as the FAC criteria. Yet I notice that many of the complaints that are being made about your nomination for FAC of Nobel Prize you are repeating to me in this GA review. I urge you to reevaluate your stance. I urge you to close this review as failed. Please. MacDaid (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The Featured List List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine is referenced solely to Nobel.org and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The Feature article Barbara McClintock is very poorly referenced and I cannot get basic referenced facts about her prize from it, such as she received awards "including the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, awarded to her in 1983 for the discovery of genetic transposition; she is the only woman to receive an unshared Nobel Prize in that category." which is unreferenced in the FA article. So should I remove that statement, since I cannot source separate from Nobel.org? MacDaid (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will not defend the featured list since I am not an expert on lists. But since there are reliable secondary sources I don't see why they are not used instead. What I can gather some of the FA criteria was not as "harsh" for some years ago so not all FAs is necessarily perfect.
You can source from nobelprize.org. But only if there is absolutely no other ref available or if it is supported by other sources such as [2].
The reference you give, although the source may seem to be good, is not of use to me since it seems to have an ax to grind and does not cover issues I am interested addressing. Even if the writer is correct, and there was no gender discrimination in her case (unlikely, given the times), the article is just a polemic on the nonexistence of sex discrimination at the Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University. Reliables sources says a reference can be used as information on itself, and since this article is about the Nobel Prize, its site is a reliable source about the Nobel Prize. MacDaid (talk) MacDaid (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Esuzu, I think you are taking the "secondary source requirement" too literally. Primary sources are fine for basic facts, names etc. (which is why they are used in the aforementioned featured list). Secondary sources are necessary for analysis and evaluation. I haven't followed this review, so I don't know which sources you want replaced, but I would imagine that basic facts in the "Nomination and selection" and "Prizes" sections would have quite a few primary sources, while the "Controversies" might depend more heavily on secondary sources. Please see WP:PSTS for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that info Dabomb87, I was not aware that you could use those alone. I hope you read this McDaid, you can thus ignore the comments about the primary sources in the pure info sections. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This comes a day late and a dollar short. So much damage has been done. I hope you heed the advice of User talk:Juliancolton that you requested also Hi Esuzu. I haven't read the entire discussion, but at first glance, I tend to side with the nominator. I know from experience that vague criticisms of an article can be quite frustrating, and while his or her tone does seem a bit strong (at first glance, again), I think the debate would benefit from more specific points. Keep in mind that when an editor nominates an article for GA or FA, they probably feel their work is as good as it's going to get. And while it may be clear to us what needs fixing, it's much harder for them to pinpoint issues. You could start by giving me specifics and quoting the relevant part of the Good article criteria to back up your requests. Best, MacDaid (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never told you to start removing anything. I told you to try to get more references. I am not worse than I can accept and say that I was partly wrong but there is no need to behave as badly as you do here (I am not against you in any way). Remember that I too do this voluntarily, my only wish being to improve the article. If it does not improve I will stop, but I certainly hope I wont have to go that far. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to AGF and assume that you did the best that you could do. However, this review has been a disaster. For quite a while I tried to follow your request. You told me perfectly good references were not good enough, references that were fine. I do not trust your judgment any longer. If you have further "criticisms" please add them below and back up your requests by quoting the relevant part of the Good article criteria. I am perfectly willing for you to fail this article and put it out of its misery. The damage is done. Best, MacDaid (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will no longer continue as the reviewer here as I got better things to do than bickering with the nominator. I certainly McDaid will be more appropriate toward the next reviewer. Good luck with the article. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from GAN talk page: [3], [4], [5] I apologize for overreacting. I suspected this review was out of line which is why I asked the reviewer to fail the review. Regretfully, MacDaid (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not be officially failed if either the nom or the reviewer chooses to withdraw for any reason. It can be manually removed from the GAN list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put a new template on this talk page, so a new reviewer could start afresh. I don't know what to do with the first review, since it is not officially failed. MacDaid (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_Medicine/GA1&oldid=1054483068"