Talk:John Marburger

(Sourcing)

A major political figure. Needs sourcing, not deletion. DGG 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So was Seigenthaler. I'd like to see at least one source. If there isn't an editor watching this who is willing to do that, then it may be better to delete the article. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Federal funding

I don't want to guess whether

, during which time it became the university with the most federal funding in the northeastern United States.

was

1. only part of what the (fairly fresh) fact-tag (which i've removed along with that language) -- in which case someone with that additional concern should re-tag), and/or
2. included with SYNTH intent e.g.,
   1. to suggest his effective grantsmanship,
   2. to suggest that indebtedness to the Bush admin affected his response to OSTP criticism, or ## to suggest that his treatment of intelligent design showed ingratitude.

Whether one of those or something else was the rationale or intent, it was functioning as a random assertion. If it is relevant to his bio, say how and source the relevant others who have asserted that relevance. E.g., did someone attribute the funding to him, based on lack of correlation by year between that funding and factors beyond his control that would be expected to incread funding? Who?
--Jerzy•t 06:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Death Announced

Stony Brook University just sent an email out announcing his passing. I have an anonymous source, so I am not putting it up live. But if there is an editor checking this, John Marburger died today. --24.191.190.229 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Marburger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PocklingtonDan (talk · contribs) 12:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article today - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, this is a pass - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Copy-editing the article now and checking spelling and grammar... few minor tweaks but it is good. PASS.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   No MoS concerns

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Reference section is appropriate. PASS.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Citations are to well-known publications, and where sampled they validate the statements made in the article. PASS.

   C. No original research:

   I see no sign of synthesis or original analysis. PASS.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Appears to cover all major periods of the subject's life, in sufficient detail on the whole. PASS on this section.

   B. Focused:

   The article is sufficiently focused and does not creep off-topic. PASS on this section.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article appears to be netural, and neither praises nor daemonises the subject. It seems to reflect the consensus view found in a quick trawl of notable sources and obituaries for the subject. PASS on this section.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No sign of any edit wars in edit history, stable and low delta. PASS on this critera.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I am happy that both images use have appropriate copyright notices, and are suitable for inclusion on this page. PASS on this criteria.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   There are sufficient images for the article. However, the main image is not captioned. A suitable caption might be "Portrait of John Marburger, c. 2001" or similar. I have captioned this now..

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is a PASS

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Marburger. 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/20121009070749/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/08/john-marburgers-impact-on-us-science.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/08/john-marburgers-impact-on-us-science.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205114948/http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9216 to http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9216

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) 07:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)