Talk:James F. Purvis

Review
I just reviewed this for the NPP. The page is obviously respectable and substantial so the main risk seemed to be copyright concerns. Earwig returns a high score of 40% for this. That top figure is just an attributed quote which is is fine but the report lists other possibilities. I see that is still actively editing the article and so I won't interrupt by copy-editing myself. Just jotting this note to let Jengod know that her hard work is being watched and appreciated. The article's on my watchlist now so I'll follow its further development with interest. Happy New Year. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Happy new year @Andrew Davidson!! there's also an sfnp error in there that's confounding me but also it's 2am here so I'm going to bed. Copy edit if you are inclined! Otherwise I'll get back to it in the morning. Thank you so much for the review and the positive feedback. It does keep one going. Best jengod (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I saw a stray heading = earlier but you took care of it.  I'll read through in detail today and attend to any other typos if I notice them.  Good night. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)