# Talk:Eugene W. Caldwell

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eugene W. Caldwell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing this article as part of the June Backlog drive.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
For the most part, the prose is very strong.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
See below for my issues with how your sources are used in this article.
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.: 
Very stable, no edit warring here.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Just two images, one of Caldwell in the infobox, which is adequate for a GA. This is just a suggestion: I wonder, though, if you could include more images of Caldwell's inventions and developments?
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I won't be able to pass this article to GA until the issues about your references are addressed. Other than that, it's a strong article about an important and interesting subject. I think that once you do that, you'll have an even stronger article.
Since this is just a GA review, I'm including a few instances of my issues with your sources and how you use them. I suspect, though, that these issues are systemic throughout the article, so they need to be addressed. 

You need to go through your sources and check that they support all your claims. I didn't check all of the accessible sources (I'm not able to access the Newspapers.com sources), but I found two instances, which I've listed below. I'm sure that the currently non-supported claims can be supported by other sources, so please make sure that they do.
Ref4a doesn't support the statement; there's nothing in it about the jobs you list. Perhaps it's been mislabelled?
Ref7: I assume that this ref is supposed to support every statement you make in the 1st paragraph of the "Illness and death" section, but it doesn't. There's nothing in the source about Caldwell serving from New York. The source does state that he was a captain, but ref9 states that he was a first lieutenant. (You should at least mention the conflict, or find other sources that support one or the other.)
Speaking of ref9, the obit lists all his memberships, which you don't include in the article. This makes me think that you haven't mined your sources enough, meaning that there's information in your sources that you don't include in the article. For example, ref7 states that Caldwell "laid the foundation for the infrastructure of diagnostic radiology that supports the specialty today", but this article doesn't and I think that it should. Another example, which is far more important, is that you say nothing in the article about how Caldwell is considered a martyr for radiation and the x-ray. You imply it throughout the article, but I think you should make the point more clearly, since many of your sources do. Therefore, I think that you should also go through your sources and include as much informaition from them as you can. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Christine -
Thanks for the excellent observations. I think I have employed most of your suggestions. I'm sorry about the bobbles with the references. I am annoyed when I review a GA nomination and find multiple reference issues, so I try not to do that in my own nominations. After getting the article mostly how I liked it, I made some changes to the chronology of the article and I don't think I moved the references correctly. Those issues should be addressed now.
I think Caldwell was a lieutenant, a captain and a major in the Medical Reserve Corps at different points, so I think that accounts for the discrepancies, but I have attempted to clarify the situation with an explanatory footnote.
I added specific references to Caldwell as a martyr to radiology and the "Dean of American Roentgenology", and I added the "laid the foundation" quote. (On my initial read through the sources, I thought that quote was a bit too vague to be helpful, but I don't have strong objections to including it.)
I added most of the organizations from the NYT obit. Some of the memberships are a bit trivial. (For example, a rather large percentage of U.S. physicians are AMA members, and it doesn't imply a special achievement.) On the other hand, I can see how that would give the appearance of not fully utilizing the available source material. I held off on a few because they seemed unclear or potentially inaccurate. Ex: I think the Sigma Chi (a social fraternity) in the obit is actually Sigma Xi (a science/engineering honor society already mentioned in our article). In the article we already have him as a member of Phi Kappa Psi, a social fraternity, so being in Sigma Chi would be a lot of socializing for one young man. Re: "President of the American Electrical Engineers", I assume this is referring to the AIEE (predecessor to the IEEE). I can't find anything about Caldwell being the AIEE president, and this (while not an RS) makes me doubt the accuracy of the information.
I've looked around for some free images related to Caldwell and his innovations, but I haven't found much yet. Let me know what else you think I should add. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@Larry Hockett, thanks for adopting the changes I've suggested and for your explanations. Be careful about revolving refs next time! ;) I'm good with what you've done, so I will go and promote this article to GA now. Congrats, and best. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)