Talk:Albertine Winner

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 04:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

General comment

Hello, this looks like an interesting article and I look forward to reviewing it. My MO is to read the article, list any issues or questions in sections by article sections, and then add a table of GA criteria and go through those items. I am detail-oriented, as a heads up. Please feel free to express your thoughts as well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is well written - great job! My comments are mostly nitpicky details and perhaps American vs. British English issues. Please inform me if my comments fall into that category.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Intro and infobox

• Infobox: The comma is not needed in "Physician, and administrator", right?  Done
• Infobox: Please capitalise first in "first deputy chief medical officer"  Done
• Intro: It would be nice if the intro included more of her accomplishments, like receiving OBE in 1945, etc. - I added the DBE.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Intro: The sentence about her death is kind of hanging out on it's own and is not really needed. If you want to keep it, can you roll it up to the previous paragraph, so that it is not an orphan?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)  Done by me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Early life and education

• Please spell out honours degree and link to honours degree Done
• I am not sure if it's an American English vs. British English thing, but I would use "a" vs. "the" in: "the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery degree as well as the University of London Gold Medal" Done
• What do you think about moving "She also played for the university's tennis team." before the 1933 graduation information. (That way, it flows a little more smoothly to "Winner followed this with an MD in 1934.[4]" from the Bachelor's degree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Career

• Is there any information about why she received the OBE in 1945 (i.e., super impressive, I am guessing that there is an interesting story.)?
  • I looked, but couldn't find anything.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Same question re: becoming a honorary physician to the Queen
  • I looked, but couldn't find anything.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Any info on how she became a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire?
  • I looked, but couldn't find anything.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• General comment: She sounds like she was likely a very impressive woman, who accomplished a lot of goals, etc. Are you interested in expanding the information about her career to provide more details?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Retirement and the hospice movement

• It seems as if this should be rolled up into the Career section, or perhaps a "Later years" section, since she had weighty roles for a number of years after her intended retirement.
• Do you know how long she was president of the "Medical Women's Federation"?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I looked by couldn't find that info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal life

• There is no information about her personal life, so I am guessing she never married. It would be interesting to know something about her personal life. It is not necessary, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I found some info, like that she was an art collector, etc. I also found a nice quote about her in the BMJ obituary. It might be nice to have, but not necessary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Research

I would be happy to do some research on her personal life and career to help fill out those sections/topics, if that works for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

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.	Yes, it is well written, concise, etc. There are a couple of comments above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC) --  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes, it complies with the manual of style guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
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.	Yes, all content is properly cited.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	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).	See below about a question about what appears to be a genealogical site.–CaroleHenson (talk) - I removed that source, it looks like they are covered by the biography and the London Gazette notice.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no evidence of original research.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers the main aspects of the topic.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It is definitely concise.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes, the article is neutral.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes, the article is stable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
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.	The only image is the photo of Winner, which has the proper fair use rationale.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There is only one photo, and it is appropriate for the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Citations

• The third source seems to be a genealogical / family tree page, which would not be a reliable source. Is that so? Is it needed, since you have two other citations on the cited sentence? -  Done, removed that source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Just because I am curious, why are the author's names expressed in initials in 8th and 10th references?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Cowlibob, I went ahead and passed the article as a Good article. You addressed the issues, except the genealogy source that I resolved, that help pass the article. The items, like expanding the article with more information about Winner, are just "nice to haves".–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)