Talk:Leona Woods/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, this looks like one that might be within my (limited) capabilities to review. However, I'll probably get someone else with more GAN review experience to briefly double check/comment once I've had a go at it.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- A small query - I can't access Ware & Braukman other than a tiny snippet view but I found "Notable Women in the Physical Sciences: A Biographical Dictionary" (Shearer & Shearer, 1997) p. 239 says: "earned her B.S. degree in chemistry from the University of Chicago in 1938 when she was only 19 years old." which backs up the Ware & Braukman. NNDB (ref #1) states Physics?
- I presume this was an error. Ware & Braukman say chemistry, as does Leona herself in her book, which I regard as definitive.
- Thanks for sorting/clarifying those. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I presume this was an error. Ware & Braukman say chemistry, as does Leona herself in her book, which I regard as definitive.
- A small query - I can't access Ware & Braukman other than a tiny snippet view but I found "Notable Women in the Physical Sciences: A Biographical Dictionary" (Shearer & Shearer, 1997) p. 239 says: "earned her B.S. degree in chemistry from the University of Chicago in 1938 when she was only 19 years old." which backs up the Ware & Braukman. NNDB (ref #1) states Physics?
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- I was just about to change the spelling of 'skeptical' to 'sceptical' when I noticed another editor had literally just minutes before changed it to 'skeptical'. My own preference is 'sceptical' but I will leave it as is so I'm not 'edit warring!'
- I'm not sure... my spell checker is set to Australian English and will change it to "sceptical" if it gets a chance, but perhaps "skeptical" is the American spelling? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, "skeptical" is the US spelling. See [Wiktionary.org/skeptical] Cyberherbalist (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure... my spell checker is set to Australian English and will change it to "sceptical" if it gets a chance, but perhaps "skeptical" is the American spelling? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was just about to change the spelling of 'skeptical' to 'sceptical' when I noticed another editor had literally just minutes before changed it to 'skeptical'. My own preference is 'sceptical' but I will leave it as is so I'm not 'edit warring!'
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Both images are US PD
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- A very interesting article about a fascinating character. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Requested double-check[edit]
After a quick pass, I don't see any issues. (I haven't drilled down into the sources, though.) The only small point I'd mention, which isn't at all relevant for the GA criteria, is that the "cancer deaths" category doesn't appear supported by the article text. Hawkeye, thanks as always for your consistently excellent work on this topic! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed that - it was there before I started the expansion. It seems very credible. Years of reading obituaries have accustomed me to mentally substituting "cancer" for "after a long illness", but I don't have an explicit source, and I don't know where the other editor got it from. So I've removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Especially for someone who worked that much around radioactive materials, it's easy to believe. Just thought I'd point it out either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help as always, Khazar2! Now I've just got to work out how to go through all the next steps to finish processing this [[File:|25px|link=]] SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Especially for someone who worked that much around radioactive materials, it's easy to believe. Just thought I'd point it out either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)