Talk:Margot Becke-Goehring

Comment

Updated article class to C because of evaluation of ORES script: https://ores.wikimedia.org/v3/scores/enwiki/891842228/articlequality --SolidStateHeini (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Updated article class to B because evaluation of ORES script results in GA. --SolidStateHeini (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Margot Becke-Goehring/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 11:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello - I am happy to review this article for GA status. I typically go through and make comments as I read, and then once most issues have been resolved / addressed, I run through the checklist to ensure I haven't missed anything. Canada Hky (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Initial notes

This was an interesting article to read, I always appreciate the opportunity to learn about new chemists.

For some initial thoughts on improving this article potentially to GA status:

• The lead should be expanded. It should cover all of the high points of the article, so it needs to include education, work focus and any notable awards received.
• There is material in the infobox which is not included in the text, particularly a notable doctoral student.
• Many of these references should have the language added.
• A lot of the research section is linked to primary sources (the original research articles) - are there reviews or textbooks (secondary sources) that could be cited instead?
• For the new articles discovered, could there be a bit more context added as far as techniques, applications etc. A table may be beneficial. Secondary sources would be good here as well.

Thank you very much. I will try to work on your suggestions during the next days. --SolidStateHeini (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried to include your suggestions. I hope it is better now. --SolidStateHeini (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Second round

Definitely much improved - the sourcing to secondary sources is much improved and the article reads much better. I have made a few small tweaks, and then I have a couple of comments which I cannot address and need some help with:

• "She helped initiating BAFöG during that time and the student riots of 1968 happened during her time as a rector.[4][2] The riots largely stopped the university reforms that have been initiated by her" - These sentences could use a bit more inline expansion and explanation. A brief note about what BAFoG is, and also what the riots were about, and what measures she initiated that helped stop them.
• "Furthermore, she worked on eight-membered ring systems (e.g. heptasulfur imide S7NH[13] and N4S4F4), on six-membered rings (e.g. N3S3X3 (X=F,Cl) and N3[S(O)Cl]), and on ring systems with S, N and O as well as S, N and C." - As a chemist, I understand this sentence, but I think it may be confusing to a general audience, particularly the last portion wit the element symbols. Possibly writing out the elements in the last portion of the sentence, and combining it - 'ring systems involving combinations of sulfur, nitrogen and either oxygen or carbon'.
• Once the edits are largely complete - try to put the citations in numerical order at the end of sentences.

• I hope it is clearer now what Bafög is.
• I hope the part about the student reforms is clearer as well. I linked an article about the student riots in Germany in 1968.
• I included your suggestion on the research part and I sorted the references.

--SolidStateHeini (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, I made a few more grammar tweaks, but I think this article has been much improved, and now meets GA criteria. Canada Hky (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2019 (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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No issues for the illustrative structure. The portrait is fair use, and all tagging and justification for fair use seems appropriate per my research.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: