Talk:Ruth Ann Davis/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hello, West Virginian!

While reviewing the article Ruth Ann Davis, I have two questions:

Do you think that the following record Records on Women Ambassadors may help us add more information? https://bush41library.tamu.edu/files/foia/1998-0260-F.pdf
Do you think that a link about teaching may also bring benefit to the article? https://www.learntechlib.org/p/33679/

Reviewer's opinion

Well-written:
1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation; still there were some grammar inconsistencies and ambiguities and even a serious outright error when the university was confused with an U.S. state, still, this error was easy to fix and I fixed it and all other grammar errors I found
Verifiable with no original research:
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline -- citations are formatted consistently;
2. reliable sources are cited inline, or must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph -- the exception is the lead section, in accordance with WP:LEAD;
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism; although there were many similarities. The highest level of similarities triggered by the Earwig's Copyvio Detector online tool and the Copyleaks online service was related to the page [1], but I addressed this issue and the alert should no longer be triggered, it is 5.4% similarity by Copyleaks, still Copyvio may trigger false alarms on long names such as university departments
Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each; still, I'm not sure about possible conflict of interest: if that is the case, then User:West Virginian should disclose it according to the rules stipulated in WP:COI; if it is not the case, I still urge User:West Virginian to declare on the article's talk page that there is no conflict of interest as this notion is explained on WP:COI
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated:
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall result: pass. The questions I addressed at the #Reviewer's opinion section would not prevent the article to pass the criteria check. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.