Talk:María Teresa Ferrari

GAN

GA pass

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:María Teresa Ferrari/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC) I will review this article, stay tuned for my comments and suggestions. (Ping me if I don't do this in the next day or two...) Montanabw(talk) 19:29, 29 July 2015 (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. 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. 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. 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). 2c. it contains no original research. AGF on Spanish sources, but from what I can examine either in English or via machine translation appears to check out 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. Still needs some expansion, but no edit wars or major disputes. Meets stability requirement 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. 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 7. Overall assessment. @Montanabw: is it possible you could wait another week on this one? I think it can be improved over the next week. I'll put it up on the WP:Women board as a collaboration target for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @Dr. Blofeld and Montanabw: I have expanded it as much as I think I can with the sourcing I have. It is over 14K. I think I am down to formatting the selected works but not really sure how to do that. I will play with it and see if I can figure it out. SusunW (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC) I guess I just take out the ref tags and put an asterisk in front of them and they show in this section. If that's not what I should do, please advise. SusunW (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC) I'll move slowly in the review, much of what I might ping will likely be addressed and the GA review doesn't need to be done in a week. I'm pretty busy IRL so I'm in no real rush. Montanabw(talk) 17:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @SusunW: I've done a basic review. Given {[u|Dr. Blofeld}}'s comments here, rather than a pass/fail at this point, I'll keep the review open and outline what I think the article needs for GA status, which is, for now, some basic expansion. Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC) The lead is too short. That said, I usually make all other fixes and fix the lead at the end. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize what the article contains - which may seem a bit repetitive, but when you factor in how many people now access wikipedia on phones and tablets, this is pretty much the audience you are writing for - a summary of the whole article. Generally it's good to have enough content to fill at least two paragraphs of summary for the lead of a GA. You might want to look at the lead of a GA-class article I did, Sheila Varian to get a sense of length and summary style. (I'm looking for ones on historical figures, there may be better examples than mine) . Done, I think. I looked at yours and Harriet Tubman. Let me know if I need to work on it more. SusunW (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC) The Google search sometimes lists her as "María Teresa Ferrari de Gaudino". Perhaps for those unfamiliar with Hispanic naming conventions, you could add that with a very quick note, i.e. María Teresa Ferrari also known as María Teresa Ferrari de Gaudino (per naming convention, blah, blah blah...). Done SusunW (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y Overall, I'd like to see a bit of wikilinking of the medical concepts. User:Keilana has worked on a lot of medical articles and may be able to help find appropriate links if you ping her. Pinged her SusunW (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Done SusunW (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Y I'd try to expand the Early life section if at all possible. I added the only bits I can find about her family and an additional bit about her pathology assistant position. SusunW (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC) In the Career section, I'd move the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph (about her finally becoming a professor in 1927) to the end of the first paragraph to keep the theme together. I know it's not chronological, but it's a better flow. You could tweak the first sentence of the 2nd para to help transition the reader between the theme of her battle for a professorship, and what she did during the intervening 8 years. DoneSusunW (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Y I'd be very interested in learning what the Peronistas were doing in terms of pressure on her... what ideals did she have and what did they attack? Was she personally targeted, or was it more a symbolic protest in general? I find nothing that says she was a target. More like if you didn't play by the "good ole boy network" you didn't get funded, your patients didn't get treated, etc. I found a source to describe what was going on in general and added the information. SusunW (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Y Do we know her cause of death? No, can find nothing SusunW (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Y The "Selected Works" would benefit from a very short intro (a small paragraph of 2-3 sentences, perhaps) that explains to the non-Spanish speaker that her works were on assorted scientific/gynecology topics. I'd also use the {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} template to have them format properly (Do you use the pull-down "templates" menu in the editing box? Very handy!), that way you make it clear which are books and which are scholarly journals (looks like both, but formatting is of). I don't think any were books. They were scientific papers, some printed by universities, some printed in Journals. No such template so I put them all into a journal citation, which ultimately rendered them pretty much exactly like I had typed them, but they are in templates so uniform. SusunW (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Y Because most of the sources are in Spanish, I am wondering if there are any other English-language sources besides the "who's who." If there aren't, there aren't, but perhaps comment on that. I could run the online sources through machine translation and get the gist, but couldn't with the books. I typed the entire book portion in Spanish into a document which I e-mailed to you.SusunW (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Y Try as I might, I find nothing on her in English except the one reference. I found another book, but no on-line copies and it is in Spanish and Portuguese. SusunW (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC) All for now, hope this helps guide you. Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC) I've been busy today, I'll have a look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC) I've given it a read and copyedit. I looked in google books but couldn't find anything further. Susun is correct that there's oddly next to nothing about her in English sources, not that it is essential anyway. I think Susun's done a remarkable job of finding all of this on her. It is in my opinion now GA quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you Dr. Blofeld. Coming from you with all of your GA experience that means a lot. SusunW (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC) @Montanabw: As many addressed as possible and much expanded and improved I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (BAC) sorry I've been slow. Will review sometime tonite and get back on all changes. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC) OK, I'm here. The lack of English sources is not a concern now that I know you've done a diligent search. Other comments to follow. Montanabw(talk) 04:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC) My concerns have been addressed. I have minor nitpicky stuff that I'd encourage work on for further improvement, but nothing that affects the GA criteria. Nice job! Passing , Montanabw(talk) 04:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)