Talk:Willis J. Potts

Willis J. Potts 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: August 8, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Biography

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

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.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the long wait in the GAN queue! I'll be able to get through this in the next couple of days. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Phew, sorry. Life took a busy turn after I opened this page. I've got a bit more time now, so hopefully you'll have my mostly uninterrupted attention. Adding my comments now; the article is generally in good shape, just a few minor things. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

That was an easy read. Excellent work! I had one small prose comment, but it's nothing to hold up the review over. If you're interested, Blue_baby_syndrome#History mentions the Blalock–Taussig shunt but not the Potts shunt. Perhaps that should be remedied? I'll let you know if I have any luck procuring a picture. Otherwise, nice work! Sorry again for the long GAN wait. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Medical career>Beginnings - In 1925, Potts, who was by then married with two children... any particular reason for mentioning his marriage/children status here? It feels like an odd aside in a sentence about opening a medical practice. I'd suggest either cutting it (you already mention it in Personal life), or giving it a sentence of its own.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section):

b (citations to reliable sources):

c (OR):

d (copyvio and plagiarism):

I spot-checked a few of the sources; everything looks good to me.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):

b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

It's too bad to have to use a non-free image. If Rush had a 1924 yearbook (public domain!) they haven't digitized it. I've reached out to the Northwestern University Library/Archives to see if they have a faculty photo they'd be willing to release. Maybe I'll reach out to Rush and some other institutions as well. I'll let you know if I have any luck on that front.

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Add topic