Talk:Bertha McNeill/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 16:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello SusunW, I'll be taking up this review and will present it to you shortly. I hope you'll find my feedback to be helpful. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for picking up the review. I look forward to working with you to improve the article. Please ping me, as I am crazy busy in real life. SusunW (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC) (Note 2 u's, no a).
 * , I've completed the review and am going to pass it now. I've left some comments below, just some suggestions and minor issues, upto your discretion (do note the 2nd and 4th comment though). Good work on the article otherwise. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I truly appreciate your taking the time to review it. I honestly believe that articles are improved by impartial reviews and I am grateful for your thoughtful comments to make the article better. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * Just a suggestion, should "early life and education" be re-named to "early life" since her education partly extends into the period of her career?
 * I used to just call that section early life, but lots of people in various reviews said it should encompass early life and education, meaning before she was working, which kinda makes sense to me. I write a lot of articles about women and it seems to me that it is fairly common for women to work (even if that is in the home) and go to school. It is also pretty common that as part of their career, they continue their education to advance in their jobs. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding, "... she earned a master's degree in 1950"; shouldn't the year (1945) mentioned in Plastas 2004 be given preference, being the academic source here?
 * The reason I put a note was that the academic source was in dispute with information released directly from the school. I opted to use the school's release, but explained it. I guess I could have done it the other way around, though. ;) SusunW (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Arteriosclerosis should be wiki-linked.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "She is remembered as an influential member of the peace movement and a leader whose activism linked peace to freedom, as well as economic and civic justice." The sources don't mention "civic justice", also the wording could be changed a bit as the present version can make it seem like a novel characteristic of her activism, whereas she is mentioned as one in a group.
 * Human rights is specifically mentioned in Ross-Sheriff & Swigonski, which is also cited. In McNeill's era it would have been called civil rights or civic justice. SusunW (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Lutz 2001 specifically names her as one of the leaders who risked being charged with subversion for their linkage of "peace with economic justice" so could it be included in the last paragraph of "activism"?
 * I input it in the section that talks about the House Un-American Activities Committee, because it is talking about the 1950s and subversion. ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The "other names" in the infobox doesn't appear necessary, usually not for abbreviated forms.
 * I usually list every version I find in sources (unless that is totally excessive.) SusunW (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Assessment
 Comprehension: The article is well written.

Verifiability: The article is adequately verifiable.

Comprehensiveness: The article is adequately comprehensive.

Neutrality: The article is neutral.

Stability: The article is stable. Illustration: The article is adequately illustrated. 

