Talk:Margaret Eliza Maltby

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Identity in STEM
— Assignment last updated by BaileeJackson (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green -- 20-minute assessment (mini-review)
Hello! As requested by u|Physhist via the June 2024 Women in Green editathon event page, here is a quick 20-minute assessment of the article to help suggest what key improvements might be needed before any formal attempt at submitting the article as a Good Article (GA) nomination. This article looks like it's coming along really well -- no major issues with prose, neutrality or stability, and it has a good number of citations and solid sources. Here's what I think needs work right now: Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A search made via Earwig's Copy-Vio Tool warns that there are sentences/paragraphs in the Career section that should be better paraphrased --> wording is too close to the CWP at UCLA source.
 * The bullet list of jobs under "Career" seems unnecessary (all or most positions seem mentioned in the prose content).
 * Stylistic inconsistency: the lead paragraph gives the birth/death dates in DD/MM/YYYY format, while the main text & infobox use MM/DD/YYYY format.
 * Content question: if Maltby completed her thesis in German, when and how did she learn fluent German? There may be a few other interesting personal details that could be added to ensure the article coverage is broad enough -- I notice the Peggy Kidwell source talks about Maltby's love of global travel.
 * With a quick disclaimer that I'm not an expert in image licensing, I do want to pose a question about correct licensing for the three photos uploaded by JaneRayGill75. The photos are from 1908, 1892, and 1918, but the user has labelled them as "Own Work" and claimed the right to release the rights into the creative commons. I'm not sure this is the correct way to license the photos, as the user is clearly not the original photographer and may not have been granted copyright-holding status from the photographer when they were gifted these portraits (it sounds like a family heirloom situation, and I don't know from the details provided whether the family held legal copyright). Some questions: who actually created the photos? Were they ever published anywhere? If the photographer is known, what year did they die? If the photos are previously unpublished, I think Template:PD-US-unpublished would be an appropriate license for at least the 1892 photo, but the other two photos may need more investigation to confirm details around source/authorship and current licensing. The WikiCommons Village Pump is a good place to ask for advice about image licensing questions like these.

Thank you so much for these great suggestions! This is very helpful! --Physhist (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)