Talk:Laurie E. Locascio/GA1

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

Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 13:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll look this over. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 13:10, 28 May 2022 (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):
 * Putting inline wikidata links is generally not necessary, per MOS:IWL. The five of these should be removed.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The citations are formatted nicely. However, the article is over-reliant on sources close to the subject. Out of 38 footnotes, I count 14 footnotes pointing to Locasio's own work, 15 footnotes pointing to sources written by her employers (White House/UMD/NIST), and 9 to WP:IS. The article should be filled out with information from independent sourcing.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The content of the article is a little too much like a curriculum vitae: I count more than a dozen degrees/awards/medals/fellowships, but very little coverage of the content of her scientific work. I'd suggest removing references to awards that are not covered by independent sources, and expanding coverage of the "115 scientific papers and 12 patents" that were briefly mentioned. The coverage needs much more detail overall.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Represents the sources currently in the article. As above, the weight of closely connected sources needs adjustment.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No issues here.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * A single headshot is helpful, but more images would really improve the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article has some substantial information, but still needs a significant expansion for more than a brief summary of Locassio's career. The content needs refocusing away from a list of qualifications to more substantial coverage of the details of her scientific and administrative work. Right now, I agree with the current talk page classification: it's about a C-class article. Sorry the review is a bit critical, I hope this assessment is constructive to help improve the article. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 14:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Forbes72, thank you for the constructive criticism of the article! It is much appreciated. I'll work on this as time allows. Hopefully other editors will also benefit from your feedback. TJMSmith (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)