Wikipedia:Peer review/Debra Ruh/archive1

Debra Ruh

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it was originally sent to AfD for being too promotional in nature, but received a significant rewrite and expansion with sources from CaroleHenson (see original version here) and was voted as keep just now. On the talk page though Cullen328 commented that "the article needs a major trimming", and in response, I have decided to seek a formal review process - which has the additional side-benefit of evaluating the reworked article for potential GA status.

Thanks, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the the request was archived, and then returned. It would be lovely to get at least some high level feedback about the current state of the article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References 29 and 30 are dead, both are links to the whitehouse.gov site. The cited material is possibly still available at the archived site at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/open -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update It looks like none of the submitted material was saved — I am not able to find it through searches or going through the menus.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the result of an automated review - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Debra_Ruh

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
Update Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
Update I'll see if maybe I could find something about disability, adaptive technology, or other related topics that might apply here.

If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
Update I wasn't able to find one for Ruh and added a photo request on the talk page. I'll send out an email request for an image to one of Ruh's organizations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Update It was within a comment, but I went ahead and spelled it out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

I hope it's useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 Yes, that was useful guidance, thanks for taking time to compile the list! The peer request was opened because a user thought "the article needs a major trimming". Do you have an opinion about that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson the section about the TecAccess company could possibly be trimmed, if there are sufficient good sources to sustain a separate article about it. I'll try to throw something on a page at Draft:TecAccess, just to see if it could be viable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67, thanks. Yes, it looks to me as if there are sufficient sources to start a separate article. I'll start drafting the content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson see Draft:TecAccess, where I made a start. I also added a list of possible sources that we can use to expand the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67, Oh, wow, thanks. I will work on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]