Talk:Barbara Rae-Venter/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Comments shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * All concerns addressed
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * All concerns addressed
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Sources appropriately formatted.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Only non-ideal sources are the website and the newsletter; they are used for non-controversial information.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Spotchecked sources are fine.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig's tool is clear; spotchecks are clear.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Broad enough, but see comment below about length
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No extraneous info
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No issues that I can find.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no stability issues.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * No images yet, but see comments below
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Per above
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Comments addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

 * Where it isn't disruptive to the flow of the text, I much prefer "United States" as an adjective over "American"; the latter term, while used as a demonym for poeple from the US in English, has both historically and in other languages been used for different sets of people.
 * does this refer to the first sentence? Or throughout?
 * Throughout, really, but especially where the change can be made without the text becoming awkward
 * Link PhD and BA at first use. Spell out BA, since that's a less common term.
 * Done.
 * "Rae-Venter has several peer-reviewed scientific publications focusing on cancer research." This is uncited.
 * I tweaked the wording and found a supporting citation.
 * "family tree sharing site" I know what you mean, but an older reader may be flummoxxed; I'd suggest "website for sharing family trees".
 * Fixed.
 * I'd suggest changing "birth father" to "biological father".
 * Fixed.
 * "DNAAdoption.org" the specific website isn't necessary unless it's independently notable
 * Fixed
 * "searching for the targeted profile" This is jargon-y, and I'm not sure exactly what it means.
 * I updated this to make it clearer, they are searching for DNA profiles that are related to the woman. Let me know if this needs some more explanation.
 * "In addition to identifying..." I'd suggest moving this sentence back to where you're still discussing the victim, rather than the kidnapper.
 * It isn't clear what it was Rae-Venter could do that the professionals could not. Is there any information available about this?
 * "and provided structure to the team's genetic search efforts" This sounds a little like corporate-speak. What does this mean? If you're unsure, leave it out, and just say she was a part of the team.
 * I have expanded on this. Really, its that there aren't a lot of professionals (or weren't at the time) who construct family trees - understanding the second cousin / third cousin / shared ancestors etc.  Genealogy has been perfected (for lack of a better term) by hobbyists, rather than professionals.
 * It's a little odd to describe Craig Venter, the Craig Venter, only as "an American soldier on leave from the Vietnam War". You don't need a lot, but what he's really notable for should be mentioned.
 * Good idea, I have added some additional context.
 * The little nugget in the lead about an adopted family member isn't in the body; there shouldn't be any unique material in the lead, really, as it's supposed to be a summary.
 * Fixed.
 * Is there any commentary on her name change? Presumably she hyphenated upon marrying Venter, but it would be nice to know; and it's interesting that she didn't drop it when they divorced. If there's nothing available, though, that's fine.
 * Nothing I could find with a reference. I'd suspect she didn't drop it when they divorced due to the publications she had under that name, but its just a guess.
 * In general, this is a very short article. It hits the highlights, so I'm not going to fail it, but I would strongly recommend scraping through the sources again for anything that's not in here.
 * I have expanded some of this. The topic is getting more coverage, so there was some new material
 * The infobox mentions her geneaology work, and her law work, but not her cancer research; why is that?
 * I had kept the infobox to the work that she was notable for, but I have added it.
 * I'd drop the last paper in the bibliography; she's not first author, and it's a much less well-known journal compared to the rest.
 * Done.
 * If there's no available images of Rae-Venter, that's fine; but you could find a non-murderer photo illustrating the Golden State killings, though, I think.


 * I am working through this, and should be able to complete everything within the standard 7 day hold period. I will let you know if I run into problems. Thanks for the review!  Canada Hky (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Please ping me when you're done, as I might miss it otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi all. I reached out to Barbara Rae-Venter through her website to ask if she would be willing to release a picture. She said she has purchased the copyright to the photo in the NYT article and is willing to release it under a compatible license. Work in progress on that. In the meantime, she said this about the article:

"Please note that there is a major error in the narrative that has been put together. I do not and have never worked with/for Parabon Nanolabs. I have taken over and solved many cases that Parabon failed to solve in the period that they contracted to work on a case.  I can send whoever is updating this Wikipedia page a list of the cases to date that I have assisted on solving."
 * Just thought I'd let you know. If you have questions/concerns let me know; she may be willing to respond to further emails. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort and the heads up! I removed that sentence.  The paper that was used in the citation is a primary article from Parabon Nanolabs, so there are a few issues with that sentence.  Canada Hky (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I have addressed all the issues raised in the initial GA review. If you find that I missed something, please let me know.  I have deferred on the photo, as it looks like we may be able to get a good one through AjPolino's efforts.  Canada Hky (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a minor point about reordering that you missed; in the interests of wrapping this up quickly I did it myself. I would encourage you to add something illustrating the GSK anyway, as it would still add to the article even if a picture of Rae-Venter is found; but I won't insist on it before passing this. Nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)