Talk:George Foster Herben

Rutgers

Thanks for taking the time to add the appropriate categories, MensanDeltiologist. Is there a reason for removing Category:Rutgers University alumni, however? Herben went to both Rutgers University and Cornell University Medical College, so I would think both would be correct. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Just made a mistake when I subcategorized for Cornell. Fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MensanDeltiologist (talk • contribs) 00:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 06:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see the very long GA review wait. I'll be able to get to this some time this week. Looking forward to the read. Ajpolino (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, Ajpolino. Thanks for taking on the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is excellent. Probably the easiest GA pass I've seen (Although it's a shame there are no available photographs from his professional life). I'm marking the article as pass now, but if you could rephrase the one sentence I mention below, that would help make the article the tiniest bit more readable. Thanks for the excellent read! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ajpolino. I broke that sentence into two and reworded it. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   •Career section, last paragraph - The sentence "He was reappointed... organization's New York chapter." is long and confusing. Could you rephrase or break it into two sentences?  Done

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran Earwig as a formality; looks good.

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images have appropriate licenses and rationales on Commons.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: