# Talk:Erez Lieberman Aiden

Here are some source not yet used in the article:

Wired profile
US Gov Award
WSJ culturomics piece
Possibly more missed on the subjects homepage—add these for GA Jebus989✰ 13:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jebus989✰ 16:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erez Lieberman Aiden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 08:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, this looks pretty solid, but some quibbles

It's usual to start bios with something like "Joe Bloggs is an American lawyer" to give us a bit of context, rather than plough straight into the nitty-gritty
Evolution —  link
numerous awards —  "numerous" is a peacock word best omitted
spell out numbers less than ten
"Anglo-Saxon" links to the people rather than the language, is this intentional? Some Saxons wrote in Latin at least.
...and was permitted to analyse their data.[12] A study of Old English texts..." —  are these the same project? A few more words to explain how he analysed the data might help
second world war.  —  usually capped
His thesis was also awarded the Hertz Thesis Prize —  perhaps "his doctoral project" or similar to avoid repeat of thesis
DoB?
Outside of scientific interests  —  "outside his"?
Lieberman Aiden participated in a modern art collaboration  — bit vague, "modern art" is a huge field
Michel, J. -B.;  —  looks like a stray space in ref 11
Capitalisation of reference titles is inconsistent, have them all the same style, even if it's not as in the original
I'll have another read through later, Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 08:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review and for these helpful comments, I'll continue trying to address them as time allows Jebus989✰ 14:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok so I've tried to address these points. I changed numerous -> "a number of", but admittedly that still sounds a little promotional; I'd be open to suggestions on how to further improve this. Regarding the modern art, I found and linked the article on the artists behind the work, will try to dig deeper and see if this is worth expanding or removing—admittedly artistic works are not my forté Jebus989✰ 16:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll have another look, but it will be tomorrow, since the Spurs v Basle match starts soon, need to get the beer in (: Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 17:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
OK< so we lost on a penalty shoot-out. I've made a couple of tweaks to the text, although I still need to read through again. We may have a problem with the image. I can't see where it says on the blog page that either the text or the image are in the public domain. Unless there is an explicit licence to copy and modify for any use, you can't use the image. You could ask for permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. Unless you can show me the image is verifiably public domain, or you can get permission as described above, you can't use it, and you can't pass GA while it's there Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 06:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Unlucky with the penalties! The two images I added were from a CC BY 3.0 blog post (license tag just above comments at the bottom of the page). I actually contacted the subject a while back and he donated several better images and figures but I have yet to slog the emails through OTRS and from what I understand there's a lengthy backlog. Thanks for the tweaks Jebus989✰ 11:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked at the top and bottom of the page, but not the middle (:
GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
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): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail:  
Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 11:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much for the review! Jebus989✰ 12:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Erez Lieberman Aiden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302144543/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=mobile_and_wireless&articleId=328003&taxonomyId=15&intsrc=kc_feat
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.erez.com/GenomeFoldingScience.pdf?attredirects=0
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126181322/http://www.umassmed.edu/112009/dekker__genome.aspx to http://www.umassmed.edu/112009/dekker__genome.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)