Talk:Maggie Savoy

GA Review

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.

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.