Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Review start
Hello, Fortunaa!

While reviewing, I filled in the missing "importance" values for the Wikiprojects templates. Could you please check the importance criteria defined by each Wikiproject to ensure all importance values are set correctly?

Also, can you please take care of the, which should not contain a trailing dot and should preferably be shorter than it is today? Could you please check the whole set of recommendations at Short_description? maybe you will have ideas on how to shorten it so you can edit it.

Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 22:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all of this, and for being so precise. I shortened the and removed the trailing dot as you suggested. I also reviewed her "importance" values. I changed her importance in DC and the US to mid, and offered factual rationales for each. For DC the first women graduates of Georgetown's medical center are important prima facie for the city, and for the US she also managed to be #1 in the nation in pathology, which is significant enough to warrant mid-importance. Fortunaa (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Review process
Hello, Fortunaa!

Thank you for your contribution in writing and submitting the biography article about Eileen Rae Niedfield for Wikipedia's Good Article review. As a reviewer, I thoroughly read the article with great interest, finding it to be engaging and well-written. The prose is clear, concise, and accessible to a wide range of readers. I have made necessary corrections to spelling and grammar errors throughout.

The article adheres to the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections; however, there seemed to be a lack of concluding sentences in the lead section. To address this, I added a closing sentence. Additionally, while it was mentioned that Niedfield belonged to one of the first cohorts of women graduates from Georgetown University Medical School, no specific year was provided in the lead section. Therefore, I included this detail.

Regarding sources, all references are verifiable and presented appropriately according to Wikipedia's layout style guidelines. Inline citations support information from reliable sources; however, there were some claims lacking proper sourcing or citation at the end of paragraphs. To rectify this issue, I utilized ancestry.com as a source for dates and found an additional newspaper source mentioning her work with Mother Teresa.

Regarding legality and originality concerns, I conducted thorough checks using tools such as Copyleaks, which confirmed that there are no copyright violations or instances of plagiarism within the article content. As a reviewer, I was obliged to check that.

The coverage provided by the article is comprehensive as it encompasses various stages of Niedfield's life including her family background and legacy among other aspects related to her biography. The focus remains on-topic without delving into unnecessary details.

It is important to note that your substantial solo effort in writing most parts of this article is greatly appreciated! The stability criterion is also met since no significant changes or ongoing disputes regarding its content or edit wars have been observed thus far.

While photographs within the article are adequately tagged with copyright statuses and accompanied by suitable captions enhancing its visual appeal, further images could potentially be sourced from newspapers; obtaining permissions may require extra effort but would enhance the overall presentation. Still, these extra images are not necessary from the point of view of a GA criteria reviewer, but as an editor, in the future, adding such images may improve the article.

Please see the edits that I made to the article, and let me know what you think of these edits and of the short description of the article I mentioned earlier.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making necessary and improving changes, and for suggesting some future growth with the article. I can also consult with the university about adding archival photographs if they allow me to put Creative Commons licenses on them. I am grateful for your excellent editing. Fortunaa (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Retracted
This GA review is retracted and the article nominee returns to the backlog for pending review, as requested on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1186450459&oldid=1186444458 Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)