Talk:Olga Hartman/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Reviewer: Lightburst (talk · contribs) 02:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to reviewing

1. The images appear to be free and properly licensed.
2. You might consider adding a non-free image of the person

   There's at least two images available right now, one free and one non-free. The free image is from her high school class, but I couldn't identify her in the photo since I believe one other girl in the photo is her sister and I couldn't tell them apart. One solution might be to use the entire class photo, but even then, how is the reader is supposed to identify her? The non-free image is from the late 1960s and shows her and her student Kristian Fauchald. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Correction, there are at least three images, one of which was a portrait profile from the Fauchald shoot in 1969. That would be ideal to use, but I haven't yet found a good copy. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. In early life the sentence needs
   MOS:LQUOTE
   "always searching for polychaetes, new and old." period should be outside of the quotations

   It says to include it on the inside if it was present in the original material. "When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark." However, I did remove two words from the beginning, which in the original context reads, "No matter, Olga cavorted over them like a gazelle", so I wonder if I need an ellipsis in the beginning. Also, does this mean I wasn't quoting a full sentence? It's a bit confusing. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Added ellipsis. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. In early life I think girls is possessive and should be girl's

   There is some major controversy over this online. I chose to go with girls athletics, which is AP style, but I see that some grammarians are wound up pretty tight about this style. Not sure what the answer is but I might take it up on the refdesk. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Update: This was already discussed at the refdesk in 2018. Although I hesitate to use the word consensus, my reading of the discussion is that it is acceptable to use girls or girls' in this specific instance. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I am also amenable to using the formulation "girls'", as that is quite common. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Body should Professor be capitalized as it is part of S.F. Light's title?

   Yes. Changed. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Body should algae covered be hypehnated?

   I dislike hyphens, but there's no way to argue against it here. Added. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. Body spent a brief period of time - should it be reduced to "a brief period"?

   Yes, I prefer that wording. Changed. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Body should department of biological services be capitalized?

   Probably. Changed. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. Body Hartman became professor - should it be (a) professor?

   Yes. Added. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Body Should PhD be Ph.D

    My understanding is that either format is acceptable provided it is consistent. I like the clean look of "PhD" so I used that instead. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Thanks for the edits and explanations. You are a valued editor and I am familiar with your work through DYK. I love learning more about this project and I plan to look for more areas of growth. I am happy with your edits and will let you know if I have other concerns after another read through and spot checks of citations. I won't hold it up over a subject image but I feel like it would be a big bonus to the article. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   As discussed above, a subject image would be nice.

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good article.