Some word choice here sounds a bit jargony and could be made more accessible:
Under Studies on delinquency and violence:
Gottesman presented evidence on how genes modulate criminal behavior, citing higher concordance for such behavior among identical twins separated at birth.
Under Awards
Gottesman has won plaudits from British, Japanese, and American professional associations. --> Maybe just "...has been recognized by many professional organizations across the UK, Japan, and the United States." "Plaudits" seems too esoteric.
Medicine and psychology now use the perspective pioneered by Gottesman and his co-researchers to investigate how and why mental disorders arise. --> This sounds anthropomorphic. It might be better to specify who or what specific professions subscribe to Gottesman's perspectives. For instance, you might say, "Researchers and practitioners in medicine and psychology..." But, see below before you change this.
Some grammar/tense issues. Should be past, not present tense when referring to what was said in publications:
Under Work on IQ:
Gottesman explains this as genetic influence becoming insignificant in the face of the privations of a deprived environment.
Under Humanistic views:
He holds chance events are a third element determining how people behave and what they become, and the interplay of all three elements is known only at the level of probabilities, and not as fixed and precise quantities.
..he provides chapters dedicated to patients' describing their own experiences with the disease, and of their family members' verbalizing their troubled emotions.
(Will do a MOS check in a day or two, or will ask another editor to do so. My MOS knowledge is not exactly up-to-snuff and will take some time.)
Per WP:GNGA#Brief, a GA doesn't have to conform to all of MOS; it is pretty much impossible for any single person to verify all of MOS. Some of the things to look for, such as tense, you already caught. I have no problem with a second pair of eyes here. Churn and change (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Done. The only thing I could notice was an inconsistent abbreviation of PhD. Sometimes it's PhD, other times it's Ph.D. I know both are acceptable, but it might be better to stick to one or the other. The other was that under "Awards," the acronym NARSAD is not spelled out for readers. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Other than the links below, the content is adequately sourced.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
A couple of sources seem problematic, but nothing major. They are:
Medicine and psychology now use the perspective pioneered by Gottesman and his co-researchers to investigate how and why mental disorders arise. --> This sentence seems problematic to me because although Gottesman's work is well-described through the article, and that he has received many awards, I'm having trouble finding explicit discussion of how his work has been used by others in the article.
Covers early life in impressive detail (I especially like the story about his thesis being initially rejected and then accepted upon appeal to Psychological Monographs) and covers several avenues of scientific work through his early, late, and present research. Also covers awards, publications, and memberships. Seems like a pretty good breadth for article about an established professor.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
None of the sections suffer from being too long, except for the lead. The lead does need to be shortened. I believe sentences in the second section describing his background can be removed or shortened. Also, the intended audiences of his work probably do not belong in the lead, such as:
He has published several books on the topics he has researched, one of which won an award for a writing style understandable to the lay person, but covering material in enough depth to be of interest to experts in the field.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
His award-winning 1991 book, Schizophrenia Genesis: The Origins of Madness...It is also available in Japanese and German. --> This sounds somewhat promotional; might be better to say "it was also translated into Japanese and German." Also, rather than say that it was "award winning," you could just say what award it actually won in a separate statement.
Otherwise, no glaring evidence of bias against other lines of research. Describes the conflict between subject's work and protesting groups in a fair manner with proper attributions.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Nominated for a speedy deletion a ways back when it was a stub, but no other conflicts since then. Seems just fine.
The current image has a non-free fair-use rationale tag, with the claim that it "serves to identify the subject of the article," who is also a BLP. An extensive search has been done by Churn and change (talk·contribs) with attempts to contact copyright holders, but with no success. I won't make a big deal about this given the legwork you've done, but has Gottesman been contacted directly about this? He may be willing to submit a photo via OTRS.
Hmmm, I am in contact with Gottesman, but the problem is the copyright is owned by the photographer. Asking him to get somebody to take a photo and then release it to WikiCommons won't work. That is why I contacted Prof. DiLalla who has taken and published photos of him, but she hasn't released the copyright (I suspect that has to do more with the problems with uploading to WikiCommons with all its tags and what not and a general aversion to dealing with anything legal, considering we are largely anonymous).Churn and change (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
