Talk:Sally Mapp/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LuisVilla (talk · contribs) 06:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Have made copyedits to help here, but some other observations: The beginning of "practice" is very redundant to the current state of "early life". Edit down? Hogarth's print is discussed in both "art" and "legacy" - is that necessary? The discussion of pushing quacks out of London seems to be more about her career than "legacy" - should that be moved? Two discussions of her death in Seven Dials/burial by the parish.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"Innate" is not formally on the "words to watch" list, but it isn't supported by the citation, and implies a lot of judgment. Similarly, "well recorded" (by whose judgment?). Suspect this will be better after dealing with some of the redundancy noted elsewhere in this review, though.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Not a hugely critical point, but when citing to articles, note that Wikipedia prefers that "pages" refer to the specific pages that support the point, rather than the entire article. I've made this adjustment in "quacks through the ages".
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The first source cites Wikipedia as a source, which is not a good sign - can lead to citogenesis. Would strongly suggest deleting that source and going back to the sources it cites instead.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I'm very uncomfortable with how closely paraphrased the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is throughout; e.g., in the sentence about 'rolling of bandages'. I would edit down - less flourish and detail unless there are other sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Maybe a little unnecessary detail in "Practice"? Not hugely problematic, but not clear that every little story is really necessary either.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The last sentence of "Legacy" is uncited and "cheerleader"-y; recommend deleting - should be obvious to the reader by the time they get to that point that she's notable (or not!)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Still needs a lot of work, I'm afraid - solid but not GA yet. Great effort for a first article, though!

@LuisVilla: When will you start the review? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanif Al Husaini @Lwebb15: Sorry about the delays - life has been very busy. Done now. —Luis (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]