Talk:Elizabeth Wagner Reed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconWomen scientists Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen writers Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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 writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen in Red: #1day1woman (2022)
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
WikiProject iconWomen in Green: Women and the Environment
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the Women and the Environment GA edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Green project in July 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green articles

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2022 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Wagner Reed/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 09:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking her up BennyOnTheLoose. I look forward to working on her with you. SusunW (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
here
for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to
    reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )    :

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
  • I made some minor script-assisted amendments. Hopefully uncontroversial, but please review and we can discuss any as necessary.

Copyvio check

  • I reviewed all matches over 3% identified using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns.

Images

  • I'm not sure the Map of Luzon Island adds much value here, but no harm in retaining it. Looks like "Drosophila melanogaster" should be italicised. Optionally, the caption could be wikilinked to Drosophila melanogaster. No other issues with licencing, positioning, ALT text or captions.
  • I like the map because many people are geographically challenged. Even those who might know where the Philippines are may have no clue where Baguio is. Fixed the italics. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • All seem suitable sources.
  • Spot checks on the James, McNeill, Sorenson (2018), and Star Tribune (1976a and 1976b). No issues.

Early life and education

  • "excelled in academics" would be an unusual formulation in British English, I think, but I'll assume it's fine in US English.
  • Seems fine to me, but changed it to excelled in her studies.
  • "earned master's degree" - add "a" or "her"
  • done
  • [5][3] - reorder references.
  • done
  • she did post-graduate studies in 1937 in plant research" - "post-doctoral" or "further post-graduate"? Masters and PhD are postgraduate. (Or they are in British English, anyway).
  • I am not sure of what is the best term, so just went with further studies.
  • Reed's thesis title should be in italics per
    MOS:ITALICTITLE
    .
  • done
  • Thank you so much for your improvements. I'll return to answers in a bit. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Career

  • "The work also noted that marriage and children were the primary reason women abandoned scientific careers" - like any study, this one will have had limitations, so I think this statement should be slightly weaker - e.g. (but you can, I'm sure provide a better wording): "concluded that marriage" or "primary reason that the women surveyed in the study gave"
  • done
  • "Tina Gianquitto" - it would be helpful to introduce Gianquitto in the text (e.g. "author of X" or "history of science scholar")
  • done
  • "Reed to that point had been" - "to that point" seems redundant
  • deleted
  • About another subject with a chapter in the book Eunice Newton Foote, Reed wrote that Foote's" - maybe "something like "In a different chapter of the book, about Eunice Newton Foote, Reed wrote that Foote's"?
  • done
  • "six of which were created by Reed" - does the source say what these were? Might be intersting to mwntion one or two.
  • It doesn't say, but I am sure I could research and include them. That said, it seemed as if the works section was getting long and so I didn't. My guess is that the ones published in the The Science Teacher are of this group and I gave an example of one in the works section. If you think that's sufficient then we're good. If not, I can see what I can find to clarify. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

  • "Eunice Foote" can be just "Foote"
  • done

Selected publications/Notes

  • Looks OK.

Infobox and lead

  • "Years active 1932–1996" - is there anything in sources that shows she was active to 1996? (Whatever that means.) Last dated activity I could see was the 1992 publication.
  • Changed to 1992
  • Optionally: I wonder whether "she became his research partner" could be rephased to something like "they became research partners"?
done

Breadth and NPOV.

  • Based on what I've seen in sources, the article seems to be suitably broad in coverage, and with no issues about focus or neutrality.

Excellent work, SusunW. As ever, feel free to challenge any of my minor comments above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose Thank you so much for collaborating on improving the article. I genuinely appreciate your help in making it better. I think I have addressed all the points, but let me know if there is anything further. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, SusunW - I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Great work! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2022 (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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
Wagner Reed, 1933
Wagner Reed, 1933
Declaration of Sentiments with Foote's signature
Declaration of Sentiments with Foote's signature

Improved to Good Article status by

talk), and GRuban (talk). Nominated by SusunW (talk) at 14:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC).[reply
]

Bilorv, I'm okay with that, but had to take a shot. The lack of a photo for Foote is frustrating, but nothing can be done about it unless one surfaces. As for lost, they were well and truly buried, scientists denied/ignored/didn't know or acknowledge that they had written works in their fields. Even though there was a published record, lack of digitization and biases also played a part in later scientists not recognizing them. I don't really know the best word to describe that phenomena. Perhaps unacknowledged? I get 176 characters if we go with "that the unacknowledged contributions of Eunice Newton Foote, about climate change, were recovered by Elizabeth Wagner Reed, whose contributions to genetics were also obscured?" Does that work? SusunW (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that works for me. For clarity, I've written it out as ALT3 and it's an ALT3 approved from me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Wagner_Reed&oldid=1209994954"