Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2023 (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.

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 13:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Comments will follow in the next couple of days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, ~~fiction, and list incorporation~~:
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:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Source spotchecks

A random spotcheck of citations to ensure there are no plagiarism, close paraphrasing, or original research. Fortunaa, could you please provide a quotation of the relevant information for the following sources, if possible

"It's always wise to check the program". Clinical Congress News. Chicago, Illinois: American College of Surgeons: 2. 15 October 1970.
Eilberg, Joshua (24 April 1967). "Medical Mission Sisters, Extension of Remarks of Hon. Joshua Eilberg of Pennsylvania in the House of Representatives". Congressional Record, March 01 – April 28, 1967. 113: A1988.

Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunaa (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you would prefer screenshots or if links are enough. Fortunaa (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are fine, thank you. Looking at the first paragraph of the "Medical service in India and Bhutan" section, there is sizeable amounts of prose that is not verified by the cited sources. The "Gazette of India" source verifies none of the first four sentences of the section, and the same goes for the last sentence, meant to be verified by the "Clinical Congress News" source. The "Medical Annals" source verifies the "averaged 600 major surgical cases per year, and had 3,000 total inpatients annually", but does not verify the "130 beds".

This is not the only citation issue in the article. I do not have access to the documents at familysearch.org, but it is listed as a generally unreliable source at WP:RSP. This PDF is positioned to cite the following sentences: He served in the New York 27th Infantry Division when it was called up to national service in Mexico (1916–1917) and France (1917–1918). After the war, he worked as a career firefighter in the New York City Fire Department, retiring as a lieutenant. The only thing you can determine from the source cited is that he held the rank of Fireman in the New York City Fire Department between 1919 and 1921. There are also two uncited sentences tagged with [citation needed].

These citation issues are sadly rather significant, and I will be failing this GAN because of them. There are a variety of other issues I would advise fixing in addition to the sourcing issues before a second nomination. These include an odd layout (there are three sections dealing with her work in India, arranged non-chronologically and rather confusingly) and three short paragraphs at the end of the early life section which breach MOS:PARA. Notwithstanding these issues, this article does have GA potential, and I hope that you will get it to the required standard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (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.