Talk:Willis J. Potts/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait in the GAN queue! I'll be able to get through this in the next couple of days. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Phew, sorry. Life took a busy turn after I opened this page. I've got a bit more time now, so hopefully you'll have my mostly uninterrupted attention. Adding my comments now; the article is generally in good shape, just a few minor things. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That was an easy read. Excellent work! I had one small prose comment, but it's nothing to hold up the review over. If you're interested, Blue_baby_syndrome mentions the Blalock–Taussig shunt but not the Potts shunt. Perhaps that should be remedied? I'll let you know if I have any luck procuring a picture. Otherwise, nice work! Sorry again for the long GAN wait. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


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

1. It is reasonably well written. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. 3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Medical career>Beginnings - In 1925, Potts, who was by then married with two children... any particular reason for mentioning his marriage/children status here? It feels like an odd aside in a sentence about opening a medical practice. I'd suggest either cutting it (you already mention it in Personal life), or giving it a sentence of its own.
 * Medical career>Beginnings - In 1925, Potts, who was by then married with two children... any particular reason for mentioning his marriage/children status here? It feels like an odd aside in a sentence about opening a medical practice. I'd suggest either cutting it (you already mention it in Personal life), or giving it a sentence of its own.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I spot-checked a few of the sources; everything looks good to me.
 * I spot-checked a few of the sources; everything looks good to me.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):
 * It's too bad to have to use a non-free image. If Rush had a 1924 yearbook (public domain!) they haven't digitized it. I've reached out to the Northwestern University Library/Archives to see if they have a faculty photo they'd be willing to release. Maybe I'll reach out to Rush and some other institutions as well. I'll let you know if I have any luck on that front.
 * It's too bad to have to use a non-free image. If Rush had a 1924 yearbook (public domain!) they haven't digitized it. I've reached out to the Northwestern University Library/Archives to see if they have a faculty photo they'd be willing to release. Maybe I'll reach out to Rush and some other institutions as well. I'll let you know if I have any luck on that front.

Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: