Talk:Frieda Fraser

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frieda Fraser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs) 01:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Some comments:

• In the lead some dates relating to major milestones would be good, especially if this goes to FAC.
• The sentences ending and starting the two refused to give up their relationship.[12] Fraser had little understanding of her immigrant patients, - are something of a non sequitur; maybe break into two paragraphs there?
• Since there is no wikilink to Connaught Laboratories, maybe briefly touch on what type of organisation it is.
• where her brother worked and accepting the position to begin at the end of her internship in October meant that she would not be joining Williams in England. Was her going to England planned? Worth providing slightly more detail here.
• Career long and large section- maybe break up into subsections? Also, maybe rename as some paragraphs are more about her life than career (which is fine)
• from 1925 to 1941, the period when the couple was separated. Separated usually has a connotation of cause due to relationship breakdown - maybe a different term is needed here?

Once these are dealt with the review should pass fairly quickly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird I believe that I have addressed all the concerns. On the second point, I moved the discussion of immigrant patients to follow the sentence on tenements. I agree it seems better placed there, but I could not see how to break it into a different paragraph since the first paragraph discusses the New York internship and the second, the one in Pennsylvania. Thank you for getting to the article so quickly. If I can address any other issues please advise. SusunW (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks those changes are good. I tidied some formatting on the refs, can you check the link to John Kennedy (Mom didn't approve) as its coming up broken for me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird Totally weird, the link is gone. I found a weblink to the same article but not by Kennedy, written not in May but published in June. It appears to be a revision because a piece of data not in the PDF version that the archive is open since 2001. At any rate, it is now in the article under Danny Glenwright. SusunW (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

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.	Very readable. I was actually crushed at the end when Frieda didn't get a long retirement with Edith
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Changes made to section means this article flows nicely now
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.	Well sourced.
	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).	Sources look fine to me.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's tool checks out, 23% result seems high but side by side comparison shows no evidence of copying
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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.	Article is new but no evidence of issues.
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.	One image is tagged appropriately
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I hope you'll continue to work on this article and send it to FA. Good stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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.