Talk:Elizabeth Wagner Reed/GA1

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 09:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking her up . I look forward to working on her with you. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio check
 * I made some minor script-assisted amendments. Hopefully uncontroversial, but please review and we can discuss any as necessary.
 * I reviewed all matches over 3% identified using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns.

Images
 * I'm not sure the Map of Luzon Island adds much value here, but no harm in retaining it. Looks like "Drosophila melanogaster" should be italicised. Optionally, the caption could be wikilinked to Drosophila melanogaster. No other issues with licencing, positioning, ALT text or captions.
 * I like the map because many people are geographically challenged. Even those who might know where the Philippines are may have no clue where Baguio is. Fixed the italics. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources
 * All seem suitable sources.
 * Spot checks on the James, McNeill, Sorenson (2018), and Star Tribune (1976a and 1976b). No issues.

Early life and education
 * "excelled in academics" would be an unusual formulation in British English, I think, but I'll assume it's fine in US English.
 * Seems fine to me, but changed it to excelled in her studies.


 * "earned master's degree" - add "a" or "her"
 * done


 * [5][3] - reorder references.
 * done


 * she did post-graduate studies in 1937 in plant research" - "post-doctoral" or "further post-graduate"? Masters and PhD are postgraduate. (Or they are in British English, anyway).
 * I am not sure of what is the best term, so just went with further studies.


 * Reed's thesis title should be in italics per MOS:ITALICTITLE.
 * done


 * Thank you so much for your improvements. I'll return to answers in a bit. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Career
 * "The work also noted that marriage and children were the primary reason women abandoned scientific careers" - like any study, this one will have had limitations, so I think this statement should be slightly weaker - e.g. (but you can, I'm sure provide a better wording): "concluded that marriage" or "primary reason that the women surveyed in the study gave"
 * done


 * "Tina Gianquitto" - it would be helpful to introduce Gianquitto in the text (e.g. "author of X" or "history of science scholar")
 * done


 * "Reed to that point had been" - "to that point" seems redundant
 * deleted


 * About another subject with a chapter in the book Eunice Newton Foote, Reed wrote that Foote's" - maybe "something like "In a different chapter of the book, about Eunice Newton Foote, Reed wrote that Foote's"?
 * done


 * "six of which were created by Reed" - does the source say what these were? Might be intersting to mwntion one or two.
 * It doesn't say, but I am sure I could research and include them. That said, it seemed as if the works section was getting long and so I didn't. My guess is that the ones published in the The Science Teacher are of this group and I gave an example of one in the works section. If you think that's sufficient then we're good. If not, I can see what I can find to clarify. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Death and legacy
 * "Eunice Foote" can be just "Foote"
 * done

Selected publications/Notes
 * Looks OK.

Infobox and lead
 * "Years active	1932–1996" - is there anything in sources that shows she was active to 1996? (Whatever that means.) Last dated activity I could see was the 1992 publication.
 * Changed to 1992


 * Optionally: I wonder whether "she became his research partner" could be rephased to something like "they became research partners"?
 * done

Breadth and NPOV.
 * Based on what I've seen in sources, the article seems to be suitably broad in coverage, and with no issues about focus or neutrality.

Excellent work,. As ever, feel free to challenge any of my minor comments above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for collaborating on improving the article. I genuinely appreciate your help in making it better. I think I have addressed all the points, but let me know if there is anything further. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, - I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Great work! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)