Talk:Ruth Ann Davis/GA1

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

}}

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Ruth Ann Davis/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruth Ann Davis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, West Virginian!

While reviewing the article Ruth Ann Davis, I have two questions:

1. Do you think that the following record Records on Women Ambassadors may help us add more information? https://bush41library.tamu.edu/files/foia/1998-0260-F.pdf
2. Do you think that a link about teaching may also bring benefit to the article? https://www.learntechlib.org/p/33679/

{{Ordered list|

{{GAList/check|ok}} Well-written:{{Ordered list|list-style-type=lower-alpha|

{{GAList/check|ok}} the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and|

{{GAList/check|neutral}} it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation; still there were some grammar inconsistencies and ambiguities and even a serious outright error when the university was confused with an U.S. state, still, this error was easy to fix and I fixed it and all other grammar errors I found}}|

{{GAList/check|ok}} Verifiable with no original research:{{Ordered list|list-style-type=lower-alpha|

{{GAList/check|ok}} it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline -- citations are formatted consistently;|

{{GAList/check|ok}} reliable sources are cited inline, or must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph -- the exception is the lead section, in accordance with WP:LEAD;|

{{GAList/check|ok}} it contains no original research; and|

{{GAList/check|neutral}} it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism; although there were many similarities. The highest level of similarities triggered by the Earwig's Copyvio Detector online tool and the Copyleaks online service was related to the page [https://www.times-news.com/dr-ruth-ann-davis-keyser/article_3c6cf3c5-041a-5058-935a-be8666e81b69.html], but I addressed this issue and the alert should no longer be triggered, it is 5.4% similarity by Copyleaks, still Copyvio may trigger false alarms on long names such as university departments}}|

{{GAList/check|ok}} Broad in its coverage:{{Ordered list|list-style-type=lower-alpha|

{{GAList/check|ok}} it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and|

{{GAList/check|ok}} it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).}}|

{{GAList/check|question}} Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each; still, I'm not sure about possible conflict of interest: if that is the case, then User:West Virginian should disclose it according to the rules stipulated in WP:COI; if it is not the case, I still urge User:West Virginian to declare on the article's talk page that there is no conflict of interest as this notion is explained on WP:COI|

{{GAList/check|ok}} Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.|

{{GAList/check|ok}} Illustrated:{{Ordered list|list-style-type=lower-alpha|

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and|

media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.}}}}

{{GAList/check|ok}} Overall result: pass. The questions I addressed at the #Reviewer's opinion section would not prevent the article to pass the criteria check. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

{{abot}}