Talk:Maggie Savoy

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 22:17, 4 June 2023 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check - I reviewed all matches over 5% found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concern, matches were nearly all just titles. No issues about paraphrasing from my review of sources.

Images - I think there would be a good case for a fair use image of Savoy, but if no free or suitable fair-use image is available, then that's OK.

I've always been a bit intimidated by free-use images but I've given it a shot. Not sure if I've done it correctly or if it's low enough resolution. Sammielh (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rartionale looks fine. I'm never entirely sure about resolution, so I added a template from Template:Non-free reduce which means a bot should take care of it just in case it's too large a file. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

• All verified by Voss (2009), but across pages 51 and 52, not just p.51.

Changed. Sammielh (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Career

• Spot check on Savoy pressed for the wedding announcements of African-Americans to be included in the paper at a time when this was rare and wrote stories on rape helplines, domestic violence and pay disparities - no issues
• Spot check on As couples were unable to work together at the paper, a typical rule at the time, Savoy's hiring was seen to be controversial. - no issues. I was a bit confused about how the hiring happened, given the "unable to work together" restriction, but this is a reflection of the source.

Same, I tried to find any information in the sources but there was nothing on this. Voss is the only one to mention it. Sammielh (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot check on she is not mentioned in the history of The Arizona Republic - no issues.
• Spot check on she was one of the reporters to be tear-gassed by the police - no issues.

Personal life

• No issues.

Death and legacy

• Having read the sources, I feel there may be a bit more that could be said on legacy and influence. I imagine that Anyone Who Enters Here Must Celebrate Maggie would be useful for that. But there's enough here for a GA.

I've tried to expand this section a bit, although I've struggled to find much that isn't just contemporaries praising her. Sammielh (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

• Savoy worked to expand the focus - I wonder if this could be a slightly bolder statmement? I think it's fair to say she worked successfully to expand the focus, but I'm not saying that's the wording that need to be used. I feel the second para could be slightly longer, e.g. wiht more specific examples from her career or something from the second para of the legacy section.

I've expanded this a bit, let me know if you'd like to see more. Sammielh (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all your work on the article, Sammielh. I have nearly nothing to add in the way of suggestions for improvement. Voss (2009) is obviously a key source and from what I've seen there and in the ther sources, you've done a great job in producing a well-balanced, suitably comprehensive article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose Thanks for doing this review! In trying to find more sources for the legacy section, I've expanded the article throughout a bit. Let me know if any of the changes have raised additional issues. Sammielh (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Brilliant work! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]