Draft talk:Edwin Samuel Lennox

Peer reviewing

First of all, sorry if I'm reviewing this too early while you guys are still working on this page, but just wanted to get it out of the way! I loved how much information on multiple portions of Lennox's life there was. Each stage is highlighted, so we do know what went on throughout different years. I'd maybe shorten the introduction and give a briefer overview of his life, then go into more detail later on especially so there isn't redundancy of information. The sources all look good to me as well. Overall, great first draft! Sophiatlouise (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This was really well structured, and the citation points are well defined. The time line through the article was well made and stayed linear with the introduction. I would like a little more information on particular projects he was assigned while apart of the Manhattan project and other fields of work. BrandanShelley(talk) 15:53, 12 February 2026

I really liked the layout and presentation of the article. The presented info is clear and to the point and is about as free from bias as is possible. The only complaint I have is that some of the information is not very specific. You said he passed away of an illness in the beginning of the article but not what that illness was. The information on his time with the Manhattan project is similarly sparse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrenBowhay (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Responding to Comment

I don't know where else to place this: I looked over the articles you've linked. 1. There is no COI. I don't have any connection to Edwin Lennox. Drafting this article is an assignment for a college course, and the topic was provided in a list of articles of the same class (having nothing written at all). After reading the criteria required for academia related pages, Edwin Lennox checks many of the boxes- meaning he is 'notable enough for a Wikipedia page.' @Ldm1954 23ssutton (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

As I stated before, this is written like an obituary, not an encyclopedic article.

1. Which criteria in WP:NPROF does he satisfy?
2. What independent evidence is there in terms of citations to his work which demonstrates the argument you make for 1?
3. What, if any notable awards did he receive that indicate that his peers considered him to be notable?
4. The page contains vast areas that are either routine (WP:MILL), do not contribute to his notability, or are unverified and unverifiable. I have struck through much of this in the present draft.

Read other pages and ask your advisor. You cannot just invent how and what to write. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

After briefly Googling "example format of encyclopedic article of a person," I found several templates with sections headed: introduction, early life and education, career and key accomplishments, personal life, and death and legacy. Due to the minimal amount of information at hand for Edwin Lennox, some of these topics have been condensed. For example, my group and I felt it best to list his education background in the same space as his works and achievements. We also didn't find anything about his personal life.

If I look up Wikipedia articles belonging to other individuals, such as Kevin Bacon, it is formatted much the same way, with the only differences being length and detail. Can you explain to me further what makes our article like an obituary vs. an encyclopedic article?

1. Edwin Lennox meets a few of the criterion listed in your referenced policy. First, he meets criteria one, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." In the subsequent 'general notes' of this policy page, it outlines what can be done to prove this. It says, "claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements...Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details...When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist...Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea...For the purposes of satisfying criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines.

One of our independent statements was collected from the book, Genesis of the Salk Institute: The Epic of Its Founders by Suzanne Bourgeois. After providing the independent source, we can also use professional sources, as stated above. Hence, the use of the Salk Institute's memoriam page (reference 4). When comparing Edwin Lennox to other researchers- he leaves a lasting impression because of his work on establishing blood-typing protocols; a system that is used daily in healthcare to ensure safety of organ transplant and blood transfusion, as well as fetal-maternal compatibility. Not only this, but knowing he worked on the Manhattan Project, one of the pivotal top-secret government missions in US war history, is also impressive. He worked in multiple different 'major disciplines' including physics, microbiology, and biochemistry, with the role of both researcher and professor and multiple institutions.

Edwin Lennox also meets criterion 3: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." This can be proven by, "publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source." This falls back on our use of the Salk Institute's memoriam page, as well as reference 10, which outlines Lennox's leadership role with Celltech. This leads us to criterion 5: "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." Lennox taught physics at University of Illinois, he was an assistant physics professor at University of Michigan, he taught microbiology at NYU, and he was an associate professor of biochemistry through the NFIP. These roles are all mentioned in Bourgeois' book, on the Salk Memoriam page, and reference 6.

2. See above for elaboration- Genesis of the Salk Institute: The Epic of Its Founders and sources 6, 8, 9, and 10.

3. No awards per say, but he was recruited by the infamous Jonas Salk to join the Salk Institution (where he was also provided his own lab and appointed apprentices), he was recruited by another great, Victor Weisskopf, to work on the Manhattan project, and he worked closely with Melvin Cohn. I don't find it likely that he would've been sought after like this if he was not notable.

4. As far as the strikethroughs go, I would be happy to dispute them with you in detail, referencing the sources they come from, or I can let you click on the reference links to see where they are mentioned in the other texts. Which would you prefer? Perhaps you think they are unverifiable because I've left the in-text citations at the end of the paragraph they apply to, rather than at the end of each sentence? My group and I are new to Wikipedia and it's not-very-user-friendly technology, editing tools, and clearly, demographic/community. I do know that in the WikiEDU training modules we were instructed to complete by our professor, it outlined clearly that talk pages and editing of articles is a group effort. Maybe we should move it back to the main space and allow other people to provide additional feedback? 23ssutton (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Google is irrelevant here. Read articles of other academics.
2. Kevin Bacon is an irrelevant comparison, he is a notable actor not an academic.
3. The Salt Institute's comments are irrelevant. He need major awards from independent large societies such as APS
4. Being a professor does not make him notable.

I am an experienced volunteer reviewer or articles. You can listen to me, or not, that is your choice. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

While we really do appreciate your criticism, we are finding it hard to turn it into something constructive.

1. If you fully read my previous response, it describes in detail how Edwin Lennox meets the criteria you suggested, yet you still disagree? We are claiming he is notable, not JUST because he is a professor, but also because of his discovery of a concept, his work on the Manhattan Project, and his recruitment to the NFIP, Celltech, and Salk Institute.
2. Alright, rather than looking at Kevin Bacon, we can analyze Jonas Salk's wikipedia page, a fellow academic. His is also formatted the same as ours, with a larger portion dedicated to the meaning of his research. Would you like us to add that?
3. Based off of the "fine print" in the policy you provided, the Salk Institute is considered a professional source that can be used in congruence with an independent source- which we have done.
4. Once again, Edwin Lennox is notable according to your standard, as he meets the criteria you provided. I'm not very familiar with wikipedia terminology, but we didn't "create" the space for this article. It was provided to us in a list of articles, also containing no text, by our professor. If there really shouldn't be an article about Edwin Lennox, due to lack of notability, why did wikiEDU and our professor both think otherwise?

I hope that you will answer these questions, as they were missed in the last correspondence. I'm genuinely trying to understand. To now recap, my questions are: 1) Can you explain to me further what makes our article like an obituary vs. an encyclopedic article? 2) Are our sources unverifiable because I've left the in-text citations at the end of the paragraph they apply to, rather than at the end of each sentence? 3-4) see below.

Lastly, if we "choose not to listen to you" and republish, will you once more remove our article from the main space? This assignment is for our microbial physiology course- I'm sure that you can see that the article is not related at all, and is busywork tasked by our professor. Would you please allow it to remain active until we can receive a grade on it? The end of the semester is the last week of April. 23ssutton (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you consult with your advisors User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and User:Helaine (Wiki Ed) on how WP:NPROF is interpreted? Ldm1954 (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

And your professor User:Ninjatacoshell should be aware of your approach to the, to quote, busywork tasked by our professor. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

One small comment on Would you please allow it to remain active until we can receive a grade on it? – This kind of grading policy is explicitly discouraged by Wiki Ed (example), and either you have misinterpreted your professor (a new article being published is not necessary for receiving a grade) or your professor has chosen brutally unfair grading criteria. I would explicitly flag any question about grading with your professor and with the Wiki Ed supervisors (like Ian). Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

We messaged the advisor and spoke with our professor and got clarification. Thank you for your feedback! Let us know if you have suggestions as to how to improve the article. 23ssutton (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Instructor Review

@23ssutton, BDimond123!, Sbagley23, and Breanne.B: You've all made good contributions to the article draft, so you can start preparing your final presentation.

User:Ldm1954 is right about a few things:

• Your draft does read more like an obituary than like an encyclopedia article. We're shooting for an article that conveys facts without puffery—almost to the point of being terse. It's going to hurt, because you put a lot of effort into your writing, but if you remove most of the material that User:Ldm1954 crossed out, the article is going to be a lot stronger. I think you should change the "Death and Legacy" section to just be "Death". Keep the date of his death, his age at time of death, and where he was interred. If you can find the cause of death (not just "sudden illness"), that can be included, too. Remove the rest of that section, like User:Ldm1954 recommended.
• The requirement for the assignment was to move your draft to the Wikipedia main space, which you did. After that you have no control over what other editors do with your article. They can move it back to the draft space, drastically edit it, or even recommend it for deletion. Your grade is not affected by the actions of other editors.

Here are a few things that you can do to improve the article (beyond removing the crossed-out material):

1. Add an infobox that summarizes key information about Edwin Lennox. See Laurence D. Marks for an example.
2. Add a "Selected publications" section. See Laurence D. Marks for an example. You can access Lennox' full publication list here.
3. Edwin Lennox is responsible for the "Lennox" formulation of lysogeny broth. Source:

Hope that helps! Ninjatacoshell (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)