Talk:Kate Gleason/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this in the coming days. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial comments (not all essential for GA-status):

Mostly okay regarding copyvio issues, but I picked up on the phrase and self-learning she earned the title of engineer being from https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/kate-gleason - you need to rewrite that in your own words.
In the sentance Today, nearly three quarters of the company's sales are international. you should avoid using the word "today", especially when the sources are over 15 years old. You might want to take a look at WP:ASOF.
Spell out the meaning of AEF rather than just use the acronym.
RIT is used later on but never defined, and so is ASME.

@Rocfan275: I still need to do another pass to check the references, etc. but it's looking good to far. Feel free to comment on the above in the meantime. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
No significant MoS issues, and it's well written.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Has refs section. Minor copyvio issue, see notes above. Looks like a suitable amount of references.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It's suitably broad, covering all major eras in her life, but also focused on the topic.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Seems neutral to me.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is stable.
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):
Images all relevant, with captions and seemingly appropriate licenses. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I agree with your initial comments and have modified the article accordingly. Rocfan275 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

Considering the current revision (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kate_Gleason&oldid=1206556542), spot-checking of sources, picked at random:

[1] Page 8 is the last page of chapter 1, which doesn't verify the date of birth. Page 4 does though, so please correct this.

[2] I don't have access, so taking on good faith it's okay, but I confirmed the source exists and is relevant.

[4] Confirmed.

[9] I don't have access, so taking on good faith it's okay, but I confirmed the source exists and is relevant.

[13] Page 58 confirms the part about cathedral at Pisa, and the University Avenue location, but I can't see where it confirms the 1904 and 1911 dates?

[16] Confirmed.

[18] I don't have access, so taking on good faith it's okay. Couldn't confirm source exists. If you could add a link to an archive that may be helpful, but certainly isn't required for GA.

[23] Confirmed about the pledge, not sure if that alone confirms Gleason was later a strong supporter of women's suffrage? But the subsequent sentances after ref [23] in the article seem to confirm it anyway, so I think it's fine.

[26] The 1918 date is confirmed, but that source is written by an independant writer, not ASME itself.

[30] Confirmed the 1998 date. I'm going to assume good faith that ref [29] confirms the donation amount as I've not checked that.

@Rocfan275: If you can comment on and/or correct [1], [13], and [26], I think we're probably in a position to promote this. Thanks for your time on it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Not part of this review, but I also found https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-91546-9_1 which may be of interest? (I've not read it myself.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing each of these:

[1] is an error. I have corrected the footnote to page 4.

[13] The missing dates of the construction are covered elsewhere, and I have added footnotes.

[18] is also covered in Janis Gleason's biography. I have added a footnote. The newspaper source was added by a different editor, and I do not have access to it.

[26] I reviewed Janis Gleason's bibliography and found contemporary sources from 1914 which she cites. The 1918 date that Nancy Giges gives is almost certainly a mistake, and I decided to delete the explanatory note and move the ASME biography to further reading.

The Springer link should make a good addition to the further reading section.

Rocfan275 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, I'm now happy to promote. Keep up the good work! -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.