Talk:Agnes Mary Mansour

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Where is the lead? Regarding the prose, there are a couple of minor things I will fix.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   That one {{citation needed}} tag needs to be addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I have an issue with the sentence "Unusually, Bevilacqua sent a letter directly to Mansour without communicating his intention to President Kane or any of the Detroit leaders of the Sisters of Mercy." The word "unusually" seems to be adding some bias. If it's not usual for him to have done this, perhaps more information on what is normal protocol would be helpful.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image needs a caption

7. Overall: This is a good article, with the exception of the lead, which is woefully short and does not incorporate the most defining issue of her life. The lead needs to be expanded per MOS:LEAD. I'll put this on hold for improvements.

   Pass/Fail:

Okay, I will consider the problem and expand the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I put an image caption in place, I replaced a fact tag with a cite, and I believe I addressed the "unusually" issue, explaining it to the reader. I'm still considering the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing those issues. All that's needed now is an expansion of the lead. What is already there can stay, but there needs to be discussion of the controversy regarding the abortion stance. If I can ask a favor, please try to have this done by Thursday December 22 at the latest, because after that I'll be traveling with minimal access to a computer. I'd like to close this before I leave. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I lengthened the lead section. Let me know if it needs further tweaking. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That'll do. I can pass this as a good article now. Well done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the fine review, especially for not tossing the nomination out after seeing the two tags! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agnes Mary Mansour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216220911/http://sturdyroots.org/PDFs/VOC/VOC_NYTimesAdpdf.pdf to http://sturdyroots.org/PDFs/VOC/VOC_NYTimesAdpdf.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Not scientist

She had a degree in chemistry but no evidence she ever practiced as a scientist. If WPWS consensus disagrees with this, switch it back. --JBVaughan (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)