Wikiwand AI

Talk:Gustaf Einar Du Rietz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Gustaf Einar Du Rietz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • Maybe "botanist" not "biologist", less of an anachronism and more specific? ([8] calls him Lichenologist, plant sociologist, conservationist.)
  • Botanist it is. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • "island of Jungfrun" - seems to be a rocky nature reserve on Gotland?
  • My bad, fixed. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • "would later" -- can't see the point of this contorted construction. Either just put things in chronological order and say he did this, he ____ed that, he did the other; or say "He later did this" if out-of-order is absolutely necessary for some reason.
  • I kept the first of these, because it's a valid and appropriate use of the future in the past tense (it reflects Du Rietz's future actions from a past perspective, encapsulating the anticipation of events that were planned or expected but had not yet occurred at that point in the narrative), but agree that the second instance was not appropriate, and so changed it to "became". Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • What are these "laws of constancy"? Either a wikilink or a gloss, preferably both.
  • Added a gloss, there's no appropriate link (and probably won't be one; it seems to be an outdated phytosociological theory). Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Nothing to do with this review, but I wonder that we don't have a {{Lichenologists}} template to go at the ends of articles like this one. Or maybe {{Swedish lichenologists}}.
  • I hadn't thought about that before, but I kind of like the idea of country-specific lichenologist templates for easier navigation. I'll bring up the idea sometime at an appropriate venue. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Done. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • "After this, .... Euphrasia: After what, exactly? (and you might say that the plant is Eyebright).
  • Reworded and mentioned Eyebrights. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • "small cryptogams" falls oddly on the ear in the 21st century, more like the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica than anything else.
  • I reverse-glossed the first instance of cryptogams, so the second time the word appears it hopefully shouldn't sound as unusual. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • "Einar guided" -> we use surnames. But if "Einar" was how he was known to colleagues and friends, that should be stated (indeed, in boldface, and you might headline the infobox "Einar Du Rietz".
  • Not sure enough that this is what he was commonly referred to, so changed to surname. Esculenta (talk)
  • "According to his biographer, .... helped them become independent researchers." The passage seems to slide from reporting Sjörs's views to stating them in Wikipedia's voice, but the claims made sound like a sympathetic biographer's not a neutral encyclopedia's. It all needs reworking.
  • I reworked this; it perhaps still sounds somewhat sympathetic, but I've made it more clear this is Sjörs's opinion and not Wikipedia's. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Images

  • The photo of Du Rietz needs a PD-US tag on Commons.
  • Added. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The other images seem to be ok on Commons but I note only one has been fully checked and annotated there.

Sources

  • There's uncited material in the first paragraph of 'Academic career'.
  • Added the source I truncated previously. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Earwig thinks copyvio is unlikely.
  • Good, it is! Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • [8] Sjörs Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift (a very readable article, btw) provides what looks like a carefully-chosen summary of Du Rietz's most important works; and unlike the list we have in the article, which inexplicably gives up after 1949, it continues until 1965.
  • I've added two more works to show his publications/research continues into the 50s and 60s. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • THE PLANT COVER OF SWEDEN is at this URL. I get an amazing feeling for Du Reitz's instruction looking through his students' careful work! - But we'll have to let 'pedia readers find that out for themselves. We ought to list it straight after 'Selected publications'.
  • Instead of placing it in that section (dedicated to pubs of the author), I added a couple more sentences in the "Recognition" section sourced to the preface of this publication, linked with the URL you give, so that interested readers will be able to explore more. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Summary

  • Well, a fascinating article on an inspirational figure. I've made only a few comments above, hope they're helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • They certainly were. Thanks for taking the time to review. My changes to your suggestions can be seen in this edit. Esculenta (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

Gustaf Einar Du Rietz

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Delist
Let's take this sentence:
The dissertation was translated into German and printed in Vienna for economic reasons, reflecting the scientific language preference in the Nordic countries at the time.
and let's compare it, not to the cited source, but a paper cited elsewhere in the article:
The dissertation was translated into German, the then common scientific language in the Nordic countries, and printed in Vienna (for economic reasons).
Going on, we get:
The defence, held in Uppsala in spring 1921, was reportedly dramatic The thesis focused on the methodological foundations of modern plant sociology, covering topics such as life forms, stratification, and the associations based on dominant species' life forms, as well as the concept of constancy and field boundary lines. Although logical and impressive for its era, the dissertation was quite schematic and faced criticism, particularly regarding the so-called Konstanzgesetze ('laws of constancy', i.e., principles regarding the regular occurrence of certain plant species within specific types of vegetation communities or habitats).
which, when compared with the same source
A reportedly dramatic public defence took place in Uppsala in the spring of 1921. .... It does not hurt to give an account of the content: as mentioned, an impressive history, chapters on life forms, stratification, associations based on the dominants of the strata according to their life form, so-called constancy, boundary lines in the field and so on. This plant sociology was logical and impressive for its time, but rather schematic. It was criticized especially regarding the so-called Konstanzgesetze.
Again in that section, compare:
The seventeen-year-old who registered at Uppsala University developed a varied interest in outdoor botany, especially in lichens and coastal areas, passions that he maintained throughout his life. He especially liked to explore the lifeforms present in the outer archipelago of the Baltic Sea and on Jungfrun, a nature reserve on the island of Gotland
with the google-translated source (again, not the one cited)
The seventeen-year-old who enrolled at Uppsala University had diverse outdoor botanical interests, primarily lichens and beaches, inclinations that followed him throughout his life. He particularly botanized in the outer archipelago of the Baltic Sea and on the island of Jungfrun in Kalmar Sound
This is what I found by glancing in their first section; this isn't the worst close paraphrasing I've seen, but it's incredibly obvious and it's obvious that this wasn't checked well enough by the author. Combined with the way that the text has been cited to a different source... I'm not particularly fussed about rewarding AI generated content, but any article with close paraphrasing issues this obvious is not a good article. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 02:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
That does seem to be an actual writing issue, specifically WP:TRANSVIO, since the source in question is in Swedish. Makes me wonder, since that source is the most extensively used throughout the article at 14 times, and there is only source for that main paragraph you're quoting from, if that's meant to be there instead of the Biographical Dictionary. Though the latter source does discuss the thesis directly (I went ahead and OCRed the text to check that, since there's no easy way to translate it otherwise). Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver seren (talkcontribs) 03:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
I wouldn't surprise me if that was the case; it also wouldn't surprise me if sources were just tacked on semi-randomly by either the machine or the author. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delist partially per issues identified by GLL. The legacy section is chock-full of AI signs; it largely consists of generalized repetitive praise. The article could be justifiably tagged as AI-generated just on that basis. I'm also concerned about breadth; the later part of his career is pretty sparsely addressed. He made the front page of Dagens Nyheter (often considered Sweden's newspaper of record) no less than six times between 1925 and 1947. Zzz plant (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks