Talk:Melvin Ramsay/GA1

GA Review

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: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 14:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should better cover the works and the heritage of Ramsay. Please consider expanding with better emphasis on works and heritage, especially what has become known and is now known as "Ramsay definition", see [[1]] and as an alternative term "Ramsay's definition" [[2]].

Please consider the lead that would look something like the following. This is just an example. If you don't like to mention particular associations or grants, try to highlight other contributions.

<!-- life -->
Andrew Melvin Ramsay (1901–1990) was a British physician known for his research and advocacy on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), a neurological disease. Born in Preston, Lancashire, Ramsay completed his Master of Arts degree from the University of Aberdeen in 1923 and his undergraduate medical degree there in 1926. He practiced medicine in South Africa from 1926 to 1935. Ramsay worked as a consultant at the Royal Free Hospital in London during a mysterious 1955 disease outbreak. He studied the disease and similar outbreaks elsewhere. His work extended to educating nurses and medical undergraduates on the practical aspects of managing infectious diseases.

<!-- heritage -->
Ramsay is remembered for his significant contributions to the understanding of ME. In 1986, he published the first case definition of ME, often called the "Ramsay definition". He co-founded the ME Association, a charity supporting individuals with ME. The ME Association funds its research through the Ramsay Research Fund (RRF), named in honor of Ramsay. Additionally, the Ramsay Research Grant Program, an initiative by the Solve M.E., a US non-profit organization, supports research into the underlying causes of ME/CFS and Long COVID.

Criteria

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; I checked with WPClener's linter and there were no errors on spelling, and I also read the article and didn't find any error on grammar except one grammar error that I fixed ("has became" -> "has become"); the article used British spelling of English without explicitly defined so, therefore I added the {{Use British English}} template to specify that, and
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation; all the citation use the same (consistent) style; still, the lead, in my opinion, has room for improvement as I mentioned in the #Lead section of my review, still, these objections alone should not prevent from the article from passing the set of requirements specified as the GA criteria, the lead can be improved later, should the nominating editor or other editors decide so
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; the sources are very good and trustworthy;
   2. reliable sources are cited inline;
   3. it contains no original research; and
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism; at least I didn't find any violation using the Earwig's Copyvio Detector online tool and the Copyleaks online service
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; still, it could have described legacy and contributions better, such as a US-based organization providing grants in his name; although the article describes the "Ramsay definition" but does not explicitly name it as such, still, these issues are insignificant and can be addressed later; these minor omissions alone don't disqualify the article from being GA-compliant, and
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
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:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall review result: pass.

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.