Talk:Leona Woods

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 11:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Need for further expansion

I've started this article out but I know that this woman has a number of achievements to her name. I'm hoping that others will help to contribute and expand on this article. (→Netscott) 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the article. I've gone ahead and removed the expand and stub tags. - Jvhertum 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking better and better all of the time. I still think the article is stubbish myself... and would leave a stub or two... but I'm not going to revert about it. Cheers. (→Netscott) 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, this looks like one that might be within my (limited) capabilities to review. However, I'll probably get someone else with more GAN review experience to briefly double check/comment once I've had a go at it.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   A small query - I can't access Ware & Braukman other than a tiny snippet view but I found "Notable Women in the Physical Sciences: A Biographical Dictionary" (Shearer & Shearer, 1997) p. 239 says: "earned her B.S. degree in chemistry from the University of Chicago in 1938 when she was only 19 years old." which backs up the Ware & Braukman. NNDB (ref #1) states Physics?

   I presume this was an error. Ware & Braukman say chemistry, as does Leona herself in her book, which I regard as definitive.

   Thanks for sorting/clarifying those. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   I was just about to change the spelling of 'skeptical' to 'sceptical' when I noticed another editor had literally just minutes before changed it to 'skeptical'. My own preference is 'sceptical' but I will leave it as is so I'm not 'edit warring!'

   I'm not sure... my spell checker is set to Australian English and will change it to "sceptical" if it gets a chance, but perhaps "skeptical" is the American spelling? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, "skeptical" is the US spelling. See [Wiktionary.org/skeptical] Cyberherbalist (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   Both images are US PD

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A very interesting article about a fascinating character. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested double-check

After a quick pass, I don't see any issues. (I haven't drilled down into the sources, though.) The only small point I'd mention, which isn't at all relevant for the GA criteria, is that the "cancer deaths" category doesn't appear supported by the article text. Hawkeye, thanks as always for your consistently excellent work on this topic! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that - it was there before I started the expansion. It seems very credible. Years of reading obituaries have accustomed me to mentally substituting "cancer" for "after a long illness", but I don't have an explicit source, and I don't know where the other editor got it from. So I've removed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Especially for someone who worked that much around radioactive materials, it's easy to believe. Just thought I'd point it out either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help as always, Khazar2! Now I've just got to work out how to go through all the next steps to finish processing this SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cause of death

There is a source that says she died of "anesthesia-induced stroke". Now, it is possible that she was under anesthesia to treat cancer. One wonders of NNDB is reliable in this case. Abductive (reasoning) 17:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Another editor added the cancer death, and did have a source, but I vaguely remembered this one. I've corrected the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leona Woods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925231128/http://www.hydeparkhistory.org/herald/WomenInTheManhattanProject.pdf to http://www.hydeparkhistory.org/herald/WomenInTheManhattanProject.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)