Talk:Theodore Lukens

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Forestry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theodore Lukens was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 2, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Assessment comments[edit]

Per request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment, I'm leaving a few comments here on how I think that this can become B-Class.

Quotations should be embedded in paragraphs unless they are three lines or longer.
There should be some more references... some paragraphs have no citations at all.
There are a lot of short paragraphs which should probably be combined for flow.
There are two types of references... shortened footnotes and full footnotes. Using only one or the other would probably be good.

-Drilnoth (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten version-May 8, 2009[edit]

I have put a great deal of effort and have suffered a great deal of abuse from my editor/husband to write this new version of this biography on Lukens. The old version is available from the page history list, to compare differences. I hope that the other editors agree that this is a much better story, both in layout and content. Enjoy! Marcia Wright (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment comments[edit]

The lead of this article contains too many paragraphs, please condense. - Done 8-5-09-MW
Please add Wikipedia:Persondata - Done 8-5-09 -MW
The section "Conservationist" could use some more wikilinks - Done 8-5-09 -MW
The article still has short paragraphs which should be combined for flow.- Under discussion, mw

Hekerui (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. To start off with, I'm concerned about the structure of this article in general. The way it's split feels rather odd for a bio article. It starts off by pointing out different aspects of what he's done (reforestation, etc.) However, there's no chronology to it, especially considering that early life is near the end.

What I could do is read it through, and if it makes sense despite this, then I'll continue. Otherwise, it's a possible fail as is. For a start, at least move early life first. Wizardman 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wizardman. First, thank you for taking on this review. Second, the first version of this article was in the traditional chronological order, and after reading it, felt it was "flat"-just a list in prose form of what he had done in his life. This version is structured in a news story style, with the most important aspects first to the least at the end. What is "most important" is entirely a subjective decision on my part, I admit.

Being that the article has a non-traditional structure, I would understand completely if you decide to fail the article. Marcia Wright (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Well, I'll do a full review of the article to note whatever issues there are so they can be fixed, though i may still fail the article. Wizardman 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few extra notes to look at:

Typically, the ideal for GAs and FAs is at least one citation per paragraph, with of course anything controversial being cited. There are many paragraphs without cites.
All quotes need to be cited. Most are, but I found a couple that weren't.
Avoid one-sentence paragraphs, as they disrupt an article's flow.

It's a very nice article, but the citation issues combined with the structure lead me to fail the article. What I would do is fix these issues, put the article up for a peer review, then bring it back to GAN; it should pass fairly easily at that point. (IMO cite adding is a lot easier to do than prose issues, and your prose is perfectly fine) Wizardman 17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and comments. Marcia Wright (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Lukens[edit]

Why is Helen Lukens or rather Helen Lukens Jones not a separate article? She is Theodore Lukens' daughter but she published work in her own name. It made finding information on her a bit more difficult. X13007 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]