Talk:Hilda Ellis Davidson/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Krakkos (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * The lead feels a bit short to me, perhaps add a second paragraph? As I review the prose i'll try to find something to add, perhaps something on the pushback her early research got? And also her championing of an interdisicplinary approach to the subject area? And some of the stuff from "Legacy"?
 * General:
 * Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, articles linked in the body generally are not listed in a see also section.
 * Early life:
 * I don't think the MOS likes "First Class Honours" being capitalized. Not required to be changed, but eventually it'll be discovered by some of our decaptitalization police and changed. Also, I'm a Yank and I have no idea what this means... link?
 * Why do you link to English studies but not archaelogy or anthropology? Also - these again probably should not be capitlizaed and I'd not pipe the link to "English studies".
 * link "Ph.D. thesis"?
 * link for "extramural department"
 * Work:
 * "which were published Folklore" do you mean "which were published originally in Folklore?
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool no copyright concerns - the one thing it flagged as a possible ... I checked and it's flaging up the various publication names for her works.
 * I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything. Note that I did a LOT of copyediting on this... please make sure I haven't introduced errors.
 * Overall a very nice little article - just a couple of spots above.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ealdgyth for your improvements and fine review. I have now made an attempt at modifying the article in accordance with your recommendations. Krakkos (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Work:
 * "which were published Folklore" do you mean "which were published originally in Folklore?
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool no copyright concerns - the one thing it flagged as a possible ... I checked and it's flaging up the various publication names for her works.
 * I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything. Note that I did a LOT of copyediting on this... please make sure I haven't introduced errors.
 * Overall a very nice little article - just a couple of spots above.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ealdgyth for your improvements and fine review. I have now made an attempt at modifying the article in accordance with your recommendations. Krakkos (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your changes look good. Passing this now! Ealdgyth (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Krakkos (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)