Talk:Beatrice Hicks

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New Jersey Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Electrical engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Beatrice Hicks has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 2, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 1, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Beatrice Hicks, the founding president of the Society of Women Engineers, created a device that made the moon landings possible?
	A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 2, 2018.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Beatrice Hicks/GA1

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

Reviewer: Accedie (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 December 2012 (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.	Just a few minor issues (commas can be a real devil) that I fixed. Other than that, good, clean, and clear!
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	I would add just a sentence or two about Hicks' accomplishments in engineering and her championing of women in science, as those are both covered in the body of the article.
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 .	Yes, all good.
	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).	AGF on off-line sources; spot-check of the online source looks good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All clear!
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Solid coverage for a GA. Would love to see this expanded if more sources exist :)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use, all good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Concise, well-written, well-sourced. As mentioned above, I'd love to see it expanded if more information is available, and taken to FA if the nominator is interested in that kind of thing :) Good work!