# Talk:William F. Wells

Oulfis, here are some sources with useful biographical information to replace the predatory journal article.

Riley, E. C., "A Tribute to William Firth Wells." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 353: pp. 81-82, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1980.tb18909.x/abstract
Harvard University archives - gives the birth date
An interesting news article about his oyster farming hobby
Oyster farming article in Popular Science
Newspapers.com obituary
These are just from a quick search, there's lots more on Newspapers.com and the Internet Archive that I don't have time to go through at the moment. Thanks for writing the article. I'll try to work on it a bit over the next few days. Spicy (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for finding these! And for looking out for the predatory journal; I wasn't sure what to do there (my usual field doesn't really attract predatory journals, since there's not much money in 18thC literary history) and I appreciate someone else stepping in. The oyster stuff is fascinating. I don't have access to Newspapers.com, so I would particularly appreciate if you were able to add that information at some point. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I may not get to it today but I will soon! By the way, you can apply for free access to newspapers.com (and a ton of other sources) through The Wikipedia Library, if you're interested. I'm sure you would qualify. Spicy (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I will look into that! And of course there's no deadline on wikipedia :) I also want to note another source I just found but won't dig into today, a useful overview of the impact of Wells' oyster farming (just so I can find the link again later). ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:William F. Wells/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 03:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

An abrasive sanitation engineer that grew his own bivalves? Can't resist reviewing this one. Will have comments here within a few days. Esculenta (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Comments/suggestions (prose tweaks are hopefully useful suggestions, feel free to use or refuse at your editorial discretion): Esculenta (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

"Wells was born c. 1886 in Boston, with a sister and two brothers." phrasing a bit awkward, maybe "Wells was born c. 1886 in Boston and had a sister and two brothers."
"could be transmitted through air" -> "through the air" is perhaps preferable as it is slightly more idiomatic in general English usage
"Mildred earned an undergraduate degree from The University of Texas Medical Branch in 1911; Wells often co-authored with her when publishing on the relationship between disease transmission and indoor ventilation." suggest slight rephrase for smoother flow: "Mildred earned her undergraduate degree from The University of Texas Medical Branch in 1911. She and Wells often co-authored publications on the relationship between disease transmission and indoor ventilation."
"military exploration of bacterial warfare" wondering if this should be "bacteriological warfare"?
"bacterial" is the term used in the WWII report ("The bearing of these findings on bacterial warfare is far-reaching") so I lean toward keeping that wording, though I've also wikilinked biological warfare. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
the paragraph about UVGI barriers and the Philadelphia schools study could benefit from clearer structure and chronological order. As written, the paragraph transitions abruptly between Wells' experiments in Boston and the subsequent implementation in Philadelphia, making the narrative harder to follow.
I tried a little bit of refinement ihere; as far as I can work out, he moved from Boston to Philadelphia due to the firing but I'm still not sure when that actually happened so it's hard to weave it in to the narrative. If you can think of better improvements, I'd be grateful for your interventions. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
maybe "In 1935, Wells demonstrated that ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) could kill airborne infectious organisms, confirming his theory about droplet nuclei and suggesting prevention methods. That same year, he implemented UVGI barriers at Boston's Infants' and Children's Hospital, using UV-irradiated cubicles to reduce cross-contamination. Building on this success, Wells developed "upper-room UVGI" – a more practical system that only sterilized air above people's heads while allowing room occupancy. From 1937 to 1941, after moving from Harvard, he tested this approach in Philadelphia schools to prevent measles spread."
the sentence "Wells' concept of droplets as primary source and vector for respiratory transmission of diseases prevailed into the 1930s, when Wells differentiated between large and small droplets" is confusing because it suggests Wells was contradicting his own earlier work. Needs clarification about whose concept was prevailing.
"Wells lectured at the Harvard School of Public Health in the 1930s, until he was fired in a conflict over academic credit with Gordon Maskew Fair (the Gordon McKay Professor of Sanitary Engineering)." suggest "Wells lectured at the Harvard School of Public Health in the 1930s but was dismissed following a dispute over academic credit with Gordon Maskew Fair, the Gordon McKay Professor of Sanitary Engineering."
"With this technique, Wells was the first to successfully cultivate Mercenaria mercenaria clams in captivity. Wells also cultivated the oyster Crassostrea virginica, the mussel Mytilus edulis, the clams Mya arenaria and Spisula solidissima, and the scallop Argopecten irradians." I suggest to give the full common names (in addition to the scientific name) for these creatures, as they are interesting and informative, and in each case reader still sees from the common name what kind of sea creature it is.
""He conducted research at the Veterans Administration Hospital, and consulted on respiratory disease for the Veterans Administration." -> "He conducted research and provided consultations on respiratory diseases for the Veterans Administration Hospital."
I appreciate the suggestion for a more concise wording, but I'm not sure that he did provide consultations on respiratory diseases for the Veterans Administration Hospital -- that suggests practicing actual medicine to me, focused on a specific hospital, whereas the source says he was...a consultant in respiratory disease for the Veterans Administration. That suggests a research-oriented position, possibly a national one. I've left this unchanged for now but I am open to other ways of rewording. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
perhaps "He conducted research at the Veterans Administration Hospital and served as a research consultant on respiratory diseases for the Veterans Administration at the national level."
"At this time, he and his family…" -> "During this period, he and his family"
"Because they were so small, any attempt to change the water (thus providing new food) would remove the larvae too." -> "Because the larvae were so small, any attempt to refresh their water supply (which provided their food) would inadvertently remove them."
"The animals in the second room did not become ill, proving that the only transmission vector in the first room was the air from the tuberculosis ward." clarify slightly -> "The animals in the second room remained healthy, demonstrating conclusively that airborne transmission from the tuberculosis ward was responsible for the infections observed in the first room."
The mention that "Wells had first proposed the idea of airborne droplet nucleus transmission of tuberculosis in the 1930s, and demonstrated that rabbits could be infected with bovine TB through droplets" seems to introduce new information mid-paragraph and might flow better if integrated earlier when discussing his 1930s work.
When I tried to put the info about 1930s tuberculosis earlier in the research section, it always felt out of place there too, so I've moved it to a note. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the sentence you describe -- I see Flügge's concept of droplets as primary source..., which I think is sufficiently clear.
The phrase "even when particles exceeded 5 microns in size" in the Legacy section assumes reader knowledge about the significance of 5 microns. This could benefit from a brief explanation, e.g. "...even when particles exceeded 5 microns in size—a threshold historically used to distinguish between larger 'droplets' that rapidly fall to the ground and smaller 'aerosol particles' capable of remaining airborne for longer periods."
I went the other direction, deleting that too-early 5-micron mention, which I think also works to avoid assuming too much. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"In 2021, Wired described an over-generalization from Wells' tuberculosis research as 'the 60-year-old scientific screwup that helped Covid kill' by creating a mainstream assumption (contrary to Wells' own work) that only particles under 5 microns carry a risk of disease transmission." suggest sentence structure tweak for clarity: "In 2021, Wired described a critical overgeneralization of Wells' tuberculosis research as 'the 60-year-old scientific screwup that helped Covid kill.' This misunderstanding led to the widespread assumption—contrary to Wells' original findings—that only particles smaller than 5 microns could transmit disease."
"Wells was chairman of the American Public Health Association's subcommittee on bacteriologic procedures in air analysis, and chairman of the American Society for Heating and Ventilation Engineers' subcommittee on air sanitation" maybe reword to avoid repetition of "chairman"
The final paragraph about Wells' personality seems disconnected from the rest of the Legacy section and might benefit from more context or integration. Is there enough in the sources to be able to more fully connect Wells' personality traits to his scientific influence and its long-term historical implications?
I did a fairly major rethink of the "legacy" section, which I think flows better now even though I don't have any more detailed information to add about Wells' personality (I don't have access to that new book by Carl Zimmer). Let me know if you think it's still clunky. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
"Major works" this is usually titled "Selected publications" (helps avoid editorial implications). Please add year and doi for the "On Air-Borne Infection" publication to make it easy for reader to get to
sources appear to be reliable and/or scholarly
Images:
both images have licenses suitable for use on Wikipedia, are used appropriately in the article, and have useful captions. Please consider moving the Wells curve image down a bit to avoid text squeezing between the two images in the research section.
Spot checks:
I checked all statements sourced to the Wired article (citation should really give the author's name and publication date of the article, but I guess that's beyond GA criteria), and didn't see any problems for source-text integrity or paraphrasing. Also checked all statements sourced to Riley 2001, without any issues.
(not GA) possibly applicable cats? Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni, Category:Harvard University faculty, Category:University of Pennsylvania faculty, Category:Johns Hopkins University faculty, Category:1880s births, Category:American military personnel of World War I, Category:Tuberculosis researchers, Category:Aquaculture in the United States
although not GA criteria, as an article about an American subject, it's best form to add "Use American English" and "Use mdy dates" templates (someone else will eventually add them anyway). Same with "Short description".
Thank you Esculenta for all of your helpful suggestions! I made most of the prose edits you suggested, and noted above where I had comments. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Made a couple of prose suggestions above in response that you are free to use or ignore. I have no remaining concerns, so will now promote this to GA. Cheers, Esculenta (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)