# Talk:Theodore Stephanides

What a source for birthday "21 January"? --Kaganer (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the text, it seems that Stephanides studied medicine in Paris only for one year, from 1929 to 1930.
Is this possible? If someone knows more about Stephanides' studies on medecine in Paris, please enlighten us. Irigozin (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A fourth crustacean species was named after dr. Stephanides. It is Arctodiaptomus stephanidesi (Copepoda, Calanoida, Diaptomidae), described as Diaptomus stephanidesi by Otto Pesta in 1935.
See also: https://fauna-eu.org/cdm_dataportal/taxon/8efb7b17-3f3f-4a96-8f59-b47d792435d0
and: http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=362855  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.182.82 (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC) 

I see it obvious and it should not be any other Stephanides, especially in Pesta, O. (1935) Pseudodiaptomiden und Diaptomiden von der Insel Korfu (Griechenland). Zoologischer Anzeiger, 110 (11-12), 310–323., but there is still no secondary source for it, and primary source is not available for me. Taurus Littrow, FYI. --Brunei (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Brunei Thanks. I see that you created an Ukrainian page for Arctodiaptomus stephanidesi, with two sources in the references. Maybe you could use that info in the Stephanides article and update/replace the references. Or I could do that myself, but later. Taurus Littrow (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking for more sources. Still can't find them, maybe later.--Brunei (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theodore Stephanides/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Taurus Littrow (talk · contribs) 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I shouldn't have started the reviewing process. Sorry, I never did this before. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This will not be a full review, but a few points that suggest some more work needed towards GA:
There seems to be a high number of block quotations which can be distracting while reading; maybe embed/paraphrase some of these into prose and paragraphs - see WP:QUOTEFARM
May want to get a few more good citations in there to help with the verifiability criterion; also should replace sources such as IMDB with ones deemed more reliable - see WP:RS

However, numerous images are in place, which seems to meet the illustration GA criterion.
Dl2000 (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks much for taking your time! Other users and I got rid of most of the block quotations, replaced the IMDb sources, and added some other citations and sources. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I guess I shouldn't have started the reviewing process. Sorry, I never did this before. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Taurus Littrow, it's in a footnote (diacritics omitted): "Stephanides became a passionate astronomer until the end of his life... Researchers Ewen A. Whitaker and Danny Caes have confirmed (in email correspondence, Aug 2013), that Felix Chemla Lamech did propose the name 'Theodore Stephanides' for 'Romer A', a moon crater. (The I.A.U. did not accept the name.)". Ewen Whitaker lists "Stephanides" as being proposed by Lamech in Mapping and Naming the Moon (1999) p228 [1], but this does not indicate either when it was submitted. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Doesn't matter much, I guess. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Taurus Littrow - major WP:COPYVIO problems, in particular with this, but also elsewhere. As mentioned at your talkpage, please also be careful of close paraphrasing when fixing any copyvios. I found these after starting reviewing the lead, and won't review further before things are fixed - existing notes: 

As the lead should contain no material that isn't part of the rest of the article, and the article is not controversial, citations can be moved to the body (MOS:LEADCITE)
Cut "famous" (MOS:PUFF) - plus what percentage of people worldwide would readily recall Durrell (even with the recent TV series)? What about in ten years?
Cut "which is still cited today" (MOS:DATED) - plus if it's the definitive work it can be assumed that it will be cited where relevant...
Cut "noted" possibly rearranging that para a little.(MOS:OPED). Similarly, don't use "notably" (noting that this also has a WP specific meaning).
I don't think that the generic "acclaimed" (MOS:PUFF) is supported by the evidence in the body.
(broadly, let the reader draw conclusions for themselves based on neutrally worded statements of fact, including statements of expert opinion given due weight). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  MER-C 10:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theodore Stephanides/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: John B123 (talk · contribs) 18:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Suggestions from the previous GA review, User talk:John B123#Theodore Stephanides and User talk:Ritchie333#GA Review have been implemented
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
A couple of references need page numbers added
John B123 Is it OK now? Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
That looks fine now
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Previous copy-vio problems seem to have been resolved
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
The only recent changes are by the creator further improving the article
Aamof, I didn't create the page. I greatly contributed to it, though. Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All images are in the public domain
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Well done