Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because, for the first time, I've put a fair deal of work into researching and adding content to an article. I think this article could be close to GA status and would really love some feedback on what's still lacking or could be improved.

Thanks, ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 03:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• First question that comes to mind is Payne, Australian, Astronomer... any relations to Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking a look! I can't be sure but I don't think there's a connection. Although Under the Radar has reasonable coverage of Payne-Scott's genealogy, I was unable to quickly find information on Edward John Payne's parents. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 04:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Animalparty

• First, the lead section is far too short. It should serve as a concise summary of the subject, touching on major accomplishments and the most noteworthy aspects of the subject.
• Second, the string of degrees after the name in the ntroduciton is uncalled for: almost every scientist has a bachelor's degree and many have a PhD. Generally only very prestigious honorifics like OBE, FRS, etc. should be appended to the name. A string of lesser degrees just gives the appearance of (needlessly) trying to increase the notability of the subject. Payne-Scott is perfectly notable as is, no puffery or overcompensation is needed.
• The infobox caption is needlessly complex: captions should be concise, especially infobox captions. Extraneous metadata about where or when can be relegated to the file description page. "Payne Scott in the 1930s" is perfectly adequate to provide context. See MOS:CAPTIONS and WP:CAP for more guidance.
• The word "pioneer" in the lead is somewhat vague and can be construed as a "peacock phrase" that promotes without imparting information. What did she do in radiophysics and radio astronomy besides being the first female radio astronomer?
• If you haven't already, review Wikipedia:Writing about women, and ask yourself if content in this article would be equally appropriate, or given the same emphasis and presentation, if the subject was male. For instance, it may be verifiable that she enjoyed knitting and loved cats, but unless such aspects were a substantial part of her personal life, they may not raise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia is not a place for everything), or at least not until other parts of the article can be expanded to give better proportion.
• Avoid sections composed of disjunct sentences. Information is better be presented in paragraph form (WP:PARAGRAPH).
• The list of publications should be considered. While somewhat of matter of personal taste, it risks becoming (or appearing) as indiscriminate info, or as trying to artificially inflate the importance of the subject. I don't know if it's comprehensive or a selection, but publishing articles is par for the course for most scientists: a selective list might include just the most significant publications, books, etc. Newspaper submissions and other lesser publications might be omitted.
• The Further reading section is largely extraneous and can be removed: per MOS:FURTHER, it should generally not include sources already used as references, or as External links.
• Lastly, the External links section should be judiciously trimmed per WP:ELNO #1: Links "should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." This means that standard biographical articles with redundant information should generally be omitted, or used as citations to expand the article. Links already used as references need not appear here. Per WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE a short, well-curated list of links might include resources for more specialist readers (i.e. links to collection archives or museum records), and links that offer unique perspectives (e.g. video clips of, or interviews with the subject). Cheers, and happy editing! --Animalparty! (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]