Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Actuall7 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to review this article. Expect my review soon. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 09:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey @Crisco 1492, thanks for addressing everything. I looked over the article one last time and couldn't find any other issues, but I did fix the wording in two areas slightly, so feel free to rewrite it if you see fit. Overall a well-written article, so I will be promoting now. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Earwig gives a 21.9% chance of copyvio, but it's just the one quote in the article.
• No edit warring.
• File:V.J. Koningsberger 1960.jpg Y
• File:Het Proefstation voor de Java-Suikerindustrie te Pasoeroean.jpg Y
• File:BernhardKoningsberger1965 (cropped).jpg Y

• Should academic be added to his list of occupations in the infobox?
  • Added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In this capacity, he continued to explore tropism. -> this line where he continued to explore tropism is kinda weird as tropism isn't mentioned previously. This earlier line: an exploration of the influence of light on plant growth is about tropism so maybe link it earlier here?
  • Reworked to make it clear. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Also is it tropism or phototropism? I don't know much about this subject but the phototropism article appears to be more related to light on plant growth as opposed to tropism which is more general.
  • Included a link in the rework for point 2 above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• You mention him replacing Frits Went as the Professor of Botany of Utrecht University but the next line calls him the rector of Utrecht University, to avoid confusion I suggest putting the date he became the Professor of Botany.
  • Added the year. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Add the marriage template to his infobox.
  • Not done. Not a GA criterion, and the sources don't provide complete information on the duration of their marriage. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Consequently, when the elder Koningsberger returned to the Indies in the early 1900s, Victor and his younger brother Jacob remained with relatives in the Netherlands. -> if you specify his father as "elder Koningsberger", then why not write "Koningsberger" instead of "Victor"? Seeing as how you've already differentiated them.
  • I think it's less ambiguous to specify it like this. Given that the second son was also Jacob, using his father's name wouldn't work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor issue, but for the red link used for his brother Jacob in this section and the infobox, use an en dash instead of a regular dash.
  • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• When did Koningsberger start attending Utrecht University? Was it after graduating from the Gymnasium Erasmianum in 1914 or 1917?
  • Source indicates 1917, on a part-time basis.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• the botanist Frits Went, the zoologist Hermann Jacques Jordan, and the psychiatrist Cornelis Winkler -> does "the" need to be put before their occupations?
  • This is consistent with my previous articles, including FAs.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• as well as more than a decade of laboratory work -> how did Koningsberger work for more than a decade at Utrecht?
  • It wasn't all Koningsberger. The source says "Zijn promotor F. A. F. C. Went was met deze dissertatie bijzonder ingenomen, omdat hier mee een belangrijke bijdrage werd toegevoegd aan de reeks onderzoekingen, die de laatste 15 jaren in zijn laboratorium waren uitgevoerd over bewegingen van planten onder invloed van licht en zwaartekrachtprikkels." (The promotor, Frits Went, was pleased with this dissertation, as it added an important contribution to the series of studies that had been carried out in his laboratory over the last 15 years on the movements of plants under the influence of light and gravitational stimuli."). I could rephrase to "as well as more than a decade of work by Frits' laboratory,"
    • I think the reword is better, although Koningsberger may have also contributed to some of the laboratory work. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, implemented. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Although several senior researchers resigned in protest -> Did they resign because Koningsberger was promoted? If so, maybe add some more background or explanation why as the line currently feels quite random.
  • He was the young upstart coming in and pushing out more senior researchers, as per the source. Rephrased slightly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although several more senior researchers resigned in protest of his appointment -> Sorry, but I think the rewording is more confusing. You write several more researchers left, but there is no mention of any researchers leaving before this line. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Split into two sentences now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• employed 32 staff -> employed 32 staff members
  • Not done. "Staff" is also used as a plural reference for staff members (Merriam-Webster, 5e; Oxford Learner's Dictionary, 1; Collins, 3)

• Maybe move the image of him and Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld down to the paragraph mentioning him receiving the medal from Prince Bernhard?
  • On my screen, the image spans from "Koningsberger was dispatched to the Indies" to " It was announced that he would be cremated in Westerveld.[14]" I can't tell what it looks like on your screen. Mobile view will be different as well, but it's impossible to get something that works with every possible permutation. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense then that the image should be left alone. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• That's the only issue I could find in this section.

• No issues.

Will do a source review next. Also wanted to say in advance that I will use machine translation for the sources. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of this revision. All refs are fine and reliable.

• [1] Y
• [2] Y
• [3] Y
• [4] Y
• [5] Y
• [6] Y
• [7] Y
• [8] Y
• [9] Y
• [10] N

• [10]b: between 2010 and 2014 -> source says 2010 to 2015.

• • Thanks, fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• [11] Y Will assume in good faith that this ref is accurate as I don't have this book.
• [12] Y
• [13] Y
• [14] Y
• [15] Y
• [16] Y
• [17] Y

Will put on hold. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]