Talk:Ruth Ann Davis/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Questions
Hello, West Virginian!

While reviewing the article Ruth Ann Davis, I have two questions:


 * 1) Do you think that the following record Records on Women Ambassadors may help us add more information? https://bush41library.tamu.edu/files/foia/1998-0260-F.pdf
 * 2) Do you think that a link about teaching may also bring benefit to the article? https://www.learntechlib.org/p/33679/

Reviewer's opinion
1. Well-written:1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation; still there were some grammar inconsistencies and ambiguities and even a serious outright error when the university was confused with an U.S. state, still, this error was easy to fix and I fixed it and all other grammar errors I found

2. Verifiable with no original research:1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline -- citations are formatted consistently;

2. reliable sources are cited inline, or must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph -- the exception is the lead section, in accordance with WP:LEAD;

3. it contains no original research; and

4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism; although there were many similarities. The highest level of similarities triggered by the Earwig's Copyvio Detector online tool and the Copyleaks online service was related to the page, but I addressed this issue and the alert should no longer be triggered, it is 5.4% similarity by Copyleaks, still Copyvio may trigger false alarms on long names such as university departments

3. Broad in its coverage:1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each; still, I'm not sure about possible conflict of interest: if that is the case, then User:West Virginian should disclose it according to the rules stipulated in WP:COI; if it is not the case, I still urge User:West Virginian to declare on the article's talk page that there is no conflict of interest as this notion is explained on WP:COI

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated:1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall result: pass. The questions I addressed at the section would not prevent the article to pass the criteria check. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)