This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica 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.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Another editor reverted my ce, saying that I didn't do anything while messing up the article. Reviewing my changes, I do see changes, and I don't see damage. I'm happy to fix defects I produce, but I'm danged if I can see any. Please elaborate. I don't edit war, so the revert stands for the moment. Lfstevens (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen this when I picked up the article to copyedit, and had basically completed my edit before seeing it. Mine involves adding more information from sources (it's about 20% longer, prosewise), and creating the requested infobox (though very few lines in it have actual data, since there isn't much about her aside from professionally and her college career). I have interpolated a few of Lfstevens changes that I hadn't made initially. I've updated the WikiProject class to "Start" from "Stub"; it isn't a stub at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lfstevens:This is the edit, and it has several problems. Some of them seem to be "change for the sake of change".
Lead section
Why was a newline introduced into the {{short description|Climate scientist}} template? This template is not intended for such use.
Why was the {{cleanup|date=November 2018|reason=table in lead should be converted to infobox}} tag removed? No action had been taken on that request.
Why was the sentence Her research interests include the dynamics of the atmosphere, oceans and climate. She is a theoretician, numerical modeller and observational scientist. removed? This is not "copy editing", it is the removal of useful information about the subject of the article.
Career
Why was the phrase As a fellow of Darwin College, Cambridge removed? This was mentioned in the lead; and per MOS:LEAD, it should also be mentioned - and possibly amplified upon - in the article body.
Why was the linked term "numerical modeller" delinked and simplified to "modeller"? Does she construct model railways?
Why was the phrase in the New Year Honours removed? It gives chronology and context.
Works
Why were the parameters of the two {{cite book}} reordered? There doesn't seem to be any point in doing that.
References
Why was the perfectly-valid template {{reflist}} replaced by the highly-unusual tag pair <references group=""></references> containing an invalid empty group="" attribute? This should simply have been left alone.
Why was a <br /> HTML tag added after the categories? There is no point to this that I can discern, it simply adds undesirable blank space after the references.
In such a short article, I thought it reasonable to leave to the body.
Again, in such a short piece, duplicating info isn't helpful to the reader.
I've never seen the term "modeller" used for anything except academic models, which are almost all numerical. Similarly, I've never seen the phrase numerical modeller. Seemed like overkill.
Is there any other time when OBEs are conferred? Seemed like noise.
The first ref was malformed. It included the url in the title and a non-url in the url. I suspect the second was done by the cite button, but I'm not sure.
I normally use reflist and basically never use the other. Again, I'll blame some utility. Not sure which.
Ditto.
Thanks for the detailed feedback. Responses inline. Lfstevens (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lfstevens: Please don't put your replies interleaved (they're not "inline" because they're not on the same lines) with my comments because that goes against WP:TPO (see this RfC from 2017 if you have a couple of hours to spare). Anybody coming to this thread is going to see your comments and assume that I made them, because my signature is the next one following. Also, by switching between colon and asterisk indentation, you've also broken the lists and that goes against WP:LISTGAP (this thread is relevant here although it is by no means the only such discussion). In my next edit I am going to invoke Fixing format errors and Fixing layout errors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you have never heard of a modeller as somebody who makes small-scale ships, trains or aircraft. The term "numerical modelling" is used in the source (last two words of the first paragraph of the Long description), so it is correct to use "numerical modeller" in our article, if only to eliminate ambiguity from any other kind of modeller. OBEs, like most other honours, may be awarded at any time (see Crown Honours Lists), although they are most often awarded in the Birthday Honours and New Year Honours, both occurring annually; other lists are issued from time to time. In 2016, OBEs were awarded in the New Year Honours; the Birthday Honours; the Prime Minister's Resignation Honours; and several other times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for the feedback. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
