Wikipedia:Peer review/Frances Gertrude McGill/archive1

Frances Gertrude McGill
I've listed this article for peer review because… after bringing it up to GA class in 2018, I'm interested in nominating it for Featured Article (FA) status this year. Quick summary: Frances Gertrude McGill was a Canadian forensic pathologist in the early 20th century who had an enormous influence on the use of science in Canadian criminal investigations. This will be my first FA project, so I'm looking for advice on how I could further prepare the article before submitting the nomination. Any and all suggestions are welcome (although I'm particularly interested in how I might be able to improve the "Cases and methodology" section).

Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, wanted to commend you for a fascinating read! I wanted to offer up a few pointers specifically to help you at an FAC run:
 * The "cases and methodology" section feels a little threadbare, because terms like "airtight case" or "helped prove" are used without actually talking about what she actually did or how she solved these cases.
 * That first sentence in the cases and methodology section sitting on its own feels a little strange. I know that examples of case names are all throughout the section, but I wonder if there's a way to provide an example immediately after that statement.
 * Death and legacy: "Many of McGill's forensic detection methods are still used in modern policing around the world, or have set foundations for new forensic science." I think this statement bears out expansion.
 * The image info on File:Picture of Frances Gertrude McGill.jpg needs some work. Compare with the other images in your article that come from Commons for a comparison.
 * Did anything come out of that nomination to get put onto currency? Reading the source, it sounds like it was actually an online petition, which you may want to clarify in the article. I think the way it its written is a bit misleading.
 * As a general rule of thumb, MOS:IMAGELOCATION recommends images to be placed on the right. I do think that Scotland Yard image could be shifted in particular.

Let me know if you have any other queries or concerns!  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for your review! I appreciate your help, and I'm glad you found it a good read -- I think McGill was a pretty fascinating figure. I've shifted the images as per your suggestion, and I've removed the currency nomination info (we did end up getting a banknote with a woman, but McGill was not ultimately chosen). Improvements to "cases and methodology" will have to wait until I can get a hold of certain sources again, but I see what you mean about that section needing some more detail. I'm not sure I can find any more specifics on exactly how McGill influenced modern policing techniques, unfortunately -- I exhausted my avenues of research when I first worked on this article, and my sources were annoyingly vague on the subject. Do you think it's worth deleting that statement if I can't expand it? Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand; I think you have the option to either delete it or mention exactly who is making that claim, if you feel it's something that's worth keeping. Although I suspect that in a potential FAC they might just ask you to take it out.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsfan77777

Noting that I've only worked on sports biographies thus far, so take these suggestions with a grain of salt.

Lead
 * McGill became internationally known for her expertise in forensic pathology, earning the nickname "the Sherlock Holmes of Saskatchewan". <<<=== I would recommend putting this as the second sentence, as that is where I would expect to find what the person is most known for. Otherwise, it's hard to figure it out if it's buried somewhere in chronological order.
 * Related to that, I would start a new paragraph with "After graduating with her medical degree from the University of Manitoba in 1915"
 * Alongside her pathological work ===>>> I'd suggest adding the start date or full date range for the allergy part
 * "After retiring in 1946 from her position at the RCMP laboratory, McGill was appointed Honorary Surgeon for the RCMP by the Canadian Minister of Justice, becoming one of the first official female members of the force. She continued to act as a consultant to the RCMP up until her death." <<<=== I would recommend putting this after the rest of the RCMP stuff.

Early life and education
 * November 18,[2]:1 1882[3][1][note 1] <<<=== Small thing: they are going to tell you to put the citations in numerical order ([1][3]). Also, do you need three sources for her date of birth?
 * In September 1900 (add "when McGill was 17 years old, her parents...")
 * I would consider combining the first three paragraphs into one (or two?)
 * having received the Hutchison Gold Medal <<<=== receiving (is the tense correct?)

Career
 * Becoming known for her work in bacteriology <<<=== This seems a little out of nowhere. How did she start to become known for her work in bacteriology?
 * Her investigations often required travelling in all sorts of weather and environments, and McGill sometimes had to use a snowmobile, dog sled or float plane to reach the necessary crime scenes. <<<=== Break into two separate sentences (to avoid parallelism issues)
 * I would combine the "She was recognized by the RCMP..." paragraph with the previous one.
 * I would combine the "Volunteering hundreds of additional work hours on evenings and weekends" paragraph with the previous one.
 * developing a polio serum and a growing specialization in allergy research ===>>> developing a polio serum and becoming a specialist in allergy research (parallelism again)
 * In the RCMP forensic lab, specify that she came out of retirement as a pathologist, or returned to pathology in the first paragraph
 * In 1945, McGill was offered a job ===>>> McGill had been offered a job in 1945 (otherwise, it's out of order in terms of the dates)

Cases and methodology
 * I might mention the Sherlock Holmes title again at or near the beginning of this section if it ties in with how she named her cases, or how she was known for specific cases?
 * Whenever McGill encountered a memorable case in her forensic work, she often gave it a name. ===>>> McGill was known for giving names to all of the memorable cases in her forensic work.
 * Also, can you specify what the cases were typically named after (e.g. name of the victim? the location?)
 * She was meticulous in her work of helping to prove a suspect's guilt or innocence. ===>>> McGill was capable of using rigorous techniques to help prove a suspect's guilt or innocence.
 * cases that nobody had known existed ===>>> cases that had already been closed or were never investigated (I think one or both of those is more accurate?)
 * Was she publicly known for any of these cases in particular? / Were any of these cases the one(s) that made her famous?

General comments
 * There a lot of short paragraphs that look like they could be combined with others.
 * Do any of the sources specify how she became well-known in Canada (or internationally)? Seeing as I don't know of any famous pathologists in the world today, I was wondering how anyone could become famous in this field?
 * McGill was a bit of a celebrity -- I've seen old Saskatchewan newspaper articles from the 1930s/40s that detailed sensational crimes and court trials of the day, and McGill is frequently quoted for her scientific opinions or her verbal sparring with lawyers as a court witness (the press loved her). I think the fact that she was a woman in an unusual profession also made her intriguing to the public! Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Normally, I would suggest looking at existing FAs of biographies on people with a similar profession, and in particular articles that were reviewed recently within the last five years. In this case, I'm not sure how similar you can get to this one. Maybe Caroline Brady (philologist) would be a good example in terms of having a similar article length?
 * After addressing (or not addressing) the comments above, I would suggest putting the article at FAC. If for whatever reason, it doesn't get reviewed after two weeks or so, you could try to find reviewers.
 * Thank you for all the thoughtful comments, -- I've incorporated most of your suggestions, including edits to the lead. I'm going to tackle the Cases/Methodology section next (I just need to get my hands on that Myrna Petersen book again), and also try to upload another photo of McGill that I've found (it's a good one!). Then I think I'll give that FA review a shot. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)