Talk:Carolyn C. Perrucci/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nfutvol (talk · contribs) 19:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Starting review. nf utvol (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Recommend removing the in-line use of the cite book template, moving those to the bibliography, and just using the book's name in the body of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Lead is lacking citations. For a living person, this is a requirement. Additional sources include a self-published CV by the subject of the article, this probably should be sourced elsewhere. Finally, the citations listed do not follow the MOS for short citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is minutiae in the article that is of questionable value, especially in regards to the conferences the author has participated in. Conference participation is a typical aspect of academic life, and would only be notable if the individual was a host or major presenter.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No apparent bias in the article as it is presented

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Very stable, but it has really only been authored by a single editor and was only created 4 months ago. Because it's so new, I'm hesitant to really call this stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images present in the article. An image of the person, images illustrating the person's field of study or place of study, home town, or subjects of the person's study would be helpful.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I unfortunately have to fail this right now. I would encourage a second reviewer to conduct a review, though. I have concerns that the article does not meet notability requirements and could be subject to deletion. As of right now, while the article is mostly written well and sourced, it is little more than a bibliography and a list of awards and achievements. For example, instead of just listed the grants the individual received, tell the reader what they did with those grants and what discoveries were made as a result of the studies conducted with the funds. Right now the article boils down to: Dr. Perucci is a professor who got some grants and contributed to some books. No reference is made to any articles she wrote. You can use the Wikipedia Library to help search for more information on her research. Hope this helps!