Talk:Ruth Ann Davis

Good articleRuth Ann Davis 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2023Good article nomineeListed
December 9, 2023Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 14, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that professor Ruth Ann Davis made the largest ever single contribution to Potomac State College of West Virginia University to support nursing scholarships in memory of her mother?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 01:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)

Moved to mainspace by West Virginian (talk). Self-nominated at 11:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ruth Ann Davis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article was worked on in userspace and then moved into mainspace. It is long enough, has citations throughout, and appears to be neutrally written. The hook fact is interesting enough and sourced. QPQ is provided. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

Passed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
  • Copyvio detector
  • Authorship
  • External links
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruth Ann Davis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 21:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Questions

Hello, West Virginian!

While reviewing the article Ruth Ann Davis, I have two questions:

  1. Do you think that the following record Records on Women Ambassadors may help us add more information? https://bush41library.tamu.edu/files/foia/1998-0260-F.pdf
  2. Do you think that a link about teaching may also bring benefit to the article? https://www.learntechlib.org/p/33679/

Reviewer's opinion

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation; still there were some grammar inconsistencies and ambiguities and even a serious outright error when the university was confused with an U.S. state, still, this error was easy to fix and I fixed it and all other grammar errors I found
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline -- citations are formatted consistently;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline, or must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph -- the exception is the lead section, in accordance with WP:LEAD;
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism; although there were many similarities. The highest level of similarities triggered by the Earwig's Copyvio Detector online tool and the Copyleaks online service was related to the page [1], but I addressed this issue and the alert should no longer be triggered, it is 5.4% similarity by Copyleaks, still Copyvio may trigger false alarms on long names such as university departments
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each; still, I'm not sure about possible conflict of interest: if that is the case, then User:West Virginian should disclose it according to the rules stipulated in WP:COI; if it is not the case, I still urge User:West Virginian to declare on the article's talk page that there is no conflict of interest as this notion is explained on WP:COI
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall result: pass. The questions I addressed at the #Reviewer's opinion section would not prevent the article to pass the criteria check. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruth_Ann_Davis&oldid=1206894594"