Talk:Doris Mackinnon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 06:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review, comments to follow. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:47, 4 May 2016 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments below
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.	Thoroughly cited, but see below
	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).	Several sources are subscription only and thus I will have to AGF on verification unless there are alternative locations where they exist. Nearly all the newspaper sources redirect to the British Newspaper archive, and others are subscription-only. Not sure there is anything that can be done about this, but if google's news archives have some of these, or other sources that show the text, I'd be interested in seeing them.
	2c. it contains no original research.	sourcing looks solid, though not all sources viewable, so pending further discussion, nothing seems to be amiss
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Accessible sources look OK, AGF on the rest
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comments below
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See comments below
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	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.	Fair use rationale is acceptable
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image appropriately used
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Overall, this article feels more like a very-well cited C- or B-Class article than a GA. There are no glaring errors, but I find that it lacks the comprehensiveness I'd like to see in a GA-class biography and it seems very dry-- Mackinnon was apparently well-liked and respected and did some groundbreaking work for women in academe and science, but her persona just doesn't come through to me. I'd like to see some expansion and fleshing out of her life and accomplishments. Some specifics:
I can't find anything about her doing anything particular for women; I think the quote box sums her up well - she was respected for her expertise but I'm not sure she was very liked (I think feared would be more appropriate!) I can't find any other sources which describe her personality any differently. ツStacey (talk)
One solution might be to move the quote in-line, to make it more obvious? Worm^TT(talk)
- Lead definitely too short for a GA-class article. Would like to see it expanded per WP:LEAD to about two paragraphs that more completely summarize the article
  Done Expanded to be much more comprehensive. Might expand a little more yet. Worm^TT(talk)
- Would like to see "Works" section expanded. I did a google scholar search and pulled up 63 articles, quite a few of which appear to be authored by her (a few red herrings too). While you don't need to do a complete bibliography, perhaps noting the articles published in the more prestigious journals or the more groundbreaking research would be fun to see.
  Done I've added a "Select Bibliography" section - I included as many as I could find where she was a significant contributor in notable journals & her book. ツStacey (talk)
- You may have already accessed these sources, but I spotted this with a wonderful photo and a good discussion of the role of women in the period and the historic significance of Mackinnon's elevation to department chair. Possibly room to expand this article with material from this source.
  Done per comment below Worm^TT(talk)
  
  That's a lovely picture and I've uploaded it. I'm a little wary of having two non-free images in the article though, I'll have a think about how best to resolve that, the new picture doesn't look right in the infobox. Worm^TT(talk)
- Her WWI service seems to get short shrift; from this it appears that her interest in amoebic dysentery stemmed from her wartime experience; we both know that there are probably some good sources out there on the toll that such sicknesses took on soldiers. From the Google scholar search, looks like she may have studied the role of fleas in spreading disease also.
- Found a few other source materials that may or may not be helpful: a mention in The Lancet
  I don't have access to the Lancet, but looking at the preview I'm not sure there's much to add to the article from it. If you have more access than me, do feel free to correct me on that! Worm^TT(talk)

Basically, with a bit of expansion I am eager to be able to pass this article, I'm just not quite there yet. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review - its been nice to find a few more bits to add. I hope Worm has done enough to get this to GA status ツStacey (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Montanabw having looked at the sources again, there were definitely a few bits that needed expanding. I've put the WWI stuff in under her work, and Stacey has put some of her published works on the page. If you've got any suggestions for items that should be in there, or ones that shouldn't, let us know and we can change that. I'm not sure about her doing groundbreaking work for women, as Stacey mentions - she was a trailblazer, in that she was the first female Chair at Kings, but at the same time, she didn't make a fuss of it nor have I seen anything advocating for more women in Science. It looks that she received her promotions for simply being outstanding. Worm^TT(talk) 17:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned and Staceydolxx: Vastly improved! I have no concerns about two fair use images, the one in the lab is entirely appropriate as it shows her in the context of her life's work. The Lancet piece is mostly just notable for mentioning her work in 1908, so she was on the radar even before WWI, not necessarily any big deal for the article, just something I found that seemed interesting. I would put the "recognition" section below the "work" section, and put the selected bibliography at the end. I'd also make the bibliography into two columns (see how I did that at Ann T. Bowling if any formatting ideas are needed). As far as trailblazing, I think it is entirely relevant to note that she was promoted for her outstanding work if you can do so without venturing into SYNTH territory. (The idea that women are promoted just for being women is so pervasive, even when the opposite is more often the case; it's sad that one has to say "promoted for simply being outstanding" but it probably should be said, where possible) Pretty much other than that, and I think you are just about there! Is there anything at all you can do about 2b/2d? (Only three sources are viewable at all online for myself, a USA-based reviewer : [1], [2], and [3]). I haven't any actual concern about copyvio from an experienced user such as yourselves, but I cannot access any of those sources, I just get redirected to the subscription page. Montanabw^(talk) 19:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reorganised and reformatted. I'm not sure what more to put about her promotion, but I'll have a think. I'm a little confused though, Montanabw, what's 2b/2d? Worm^TT(talk) 20:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Items 2b and 2d in the review box above, my question about AGF on sources, I can only actually access three of them, nearly all the rest redirect to the British Newspaper archive so I can't verify much. While I am very comfortable and willing to AGF on this because I know you've been doing this a long time, I am wondering if there is any other way to access those newspaper sources. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, , I'm passing the article, it clearly meets the GA criteria and I have no reason to doubt verifiability. Congrats (but I still am curious if there's a way to access those British Newspaper archive sources) Montanabw ^(talk) 07:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right - hadn't made the connection. Montanabw If there are any sources you'd like from BNA, I'm happy to screenshot them and email them to you. The only other way I know to get copies of the newspapers is in our local library, which again isn't much use to you! Worm^TT(talk) 16:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you very much for the pass! Worm^TT(talk) 16:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I run into a BNA redirect in the future, I shall remember that you have access and will give you a shout. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]