Talk:Catherine Neill

Catherine Neill has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 24, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: Women in the world (2017)

This article was created or improved during the Women in the world contest hosted by the Women in Red project in November 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I am happy to review this article for GA status. I typically go through and leave comments and suggestions, and then once any issues that need to be addressed have been addressed, I go through and review off a checklist to make sure everything has been covered by the official criteria. Canada Hky (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments edit

There is a bit of inconsistency between British and American spelling for 'pediatric' - outside of quotes, per Wikipedia's policy on consistency, it should be the same throughout.
"Neill first retired in 1989 after working at Hopkins for the better part of six decades, but she returned to during a period of great clinical demand" - I think there is something missing after 'to' in this sentence.
Could the very short "Personal life" section be folded into another section, or expanded? It could fit nicely into an adjusted death and legacy section (see below)
Similar - the death and legacy section has a chunk of material that is probably best suited for the end of the career section (retirement and return to work).
The formatting of her selected publications should be consistent. All journal articles should have DOI and PMID. I would suggest arranging them chronologically as well.
The image looks good, with an appropriate license.
For the Lancet obituary - could an access date be added?
No paraphrasing issues or copyvios - all quotes are appropriately attributed.
The date formats change throughout the articles: September 3, 1921 vs 23 February 2006.

Those are what I found on an initial read through, I don't think anything too onerous. If there are any questions or clarifications needed, please don't hesitate to ask. Canada Hky (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Canada Hky: Thanks for your helpful comments! I have addressed everything, with the exception of not being able to find a DOI for two of the older journal articles. ceranthor 15:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Full list edit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) Thank you for your help getting this article to GA status, and your attention to detail during this review.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
All issues addressed here.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Congratulations - this is a well written biography for a very well deserving cardiologist!
Pass/Fail:

Add topic