Talk:Kitty Joyner

File:Kitty Joyner - Electrical Engineer - GPN-2000-001933.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Kitty Joyner - Electrical Engineer - GPN-2000-001933.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 11, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-02-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Kitty Joyner (1916–1993) was an American electrical engineer with the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), and then the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). She was hired in 1939 as the organization's first woman engineer, shortly after she had become the first woman to graduate from the University of Virginia's engineering program.Photograph: NACA

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kitty O'Brien Joyner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 12:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am happy to review this article for GA status. I typically read through and make initial comments as I go, and then run through the checklist after everything has been resolvd or acknowledged. Canada Hky (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Canada Hky: Thanks! I can probably get to your comments below sometime tonight. For context, I started this article a couple years ago after I came across that great picture and wanted to learn more about the person -- and what it was she was standing in front of. :) A few days ago I revisited it and did another search for sources. What's here is exhaustive of what I could find. It's not a lot, but I felt like it was in good shape for what's available, having notability pretty solidly established. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Great - I look forward to seeing how things progress. I think short articles can be good articles with no issue, as long as it is accurate and encyclopedic, so I have no concerns about that. Canada Hky (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Initial review

This is a really interesting article. I recently finished reading Hidden Figures, and this segues nicely with that. A few introductory notes:

• The lead accurately sums up the article, but could maybe place a bit more appropriate weight on some of her accomplishments. Being hired as the first woman engineer and being the first woman UVA engineer graduate are notable enough that they do not need to be forced into a single sentence.

• expanded a bit. open to ideas for other ways to do so  Done?

• Some of the inline references need to be reorganized to be in sequential order. I started this, but it may be better served after any further tweaks to the article have been completed.

•  Done

• For this statement "...but in 1937, women had not been admitted Engineering School despite a 1920 state law allowing it" - the cited reference supports the 1920 date, but does not say anything about women not being admitted as of 1937. Could an appropriate reference be found for that statement, and these sentences reorganized?

• reworded.  Done?

• For the Miami News quotes - is the reporter's name available? It would be good for the citation and also as their thoughts are being directly used in the article.

• Unfortunately not -- not that I saw, anyway. Here's a newspaper.com clip

• The LMAL is abbreviated, but the abbreviation is never used again, so this can be removed.

•  Done

• It is unclear from the text - is the Algernon Sydney Sullivan Award awarded at graduation or a later date?

•  Done

• What is the Winnie Davis Award?

• was harder to find than I would've thought but  Done

• Try to eliminate the one sentence paragraphs that are at the end of sections.

•  Done

@Canada Hky: Thanks. I think I've addressed all of the above that I can. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Checklist review

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):

   Great work - this article is a very well written biography.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No issues, there is a public domain source utilized, but all is properly sourced and cited.

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):

   The image is excellent - I can see why it caught your eye. It was one of the reasons I snagged the article to review.

7. Overall: Thank you for developing this article, and putting the effort into improving it!

   Pass/Fail:

Canada Hky (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Problem with main picture

Somebody appears to have posted a naked lady. I seriously doubt this is the correct picture and is most certainly inappropriate to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.161.175 (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The page was indeed vandalized a couple times, but the vandalism only remained for a few minutes (a few minutes too many, but still). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)