Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created by Sdkb (talk). Self-nominated at 08:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • . The source for the hook is not strong but it is repeated in her obit. QPQ done. The article is well written and it includes lots of refs. There is a free to use pic but its not very hooky. Article is neutral. Its new enough and this is good to go. Me and earwig can see no close paraphrasing. (I would suggest that you consider including this picture and the supporting story as I think this is of interest and also including the football story in the college article. but this is not part of the review).The hook is a bit verbose and I have shortened it but do feel free to revert. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the review! The shortened hook is fine; it'd be nice if there was a way to concisely communicate that the weighing was a recurring event rather than a one-time thing, but not sure how. And image added. (I considered adding the football story to Pomona's main article, but the 60s paragraph in the history section is already quite full and the other stuff is more important, so I think it's better placed in the traditions article and Walton's article.) ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To T:DYK/P7

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 06:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I will begin my review soon. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Most Comfortable Chair, sounds good! Thanks for picking this up, and looking forward to your comments! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead

Early life

Career

Later life

Recognition and legacy

References

External links

A well-written and informative article, it should pass. That will be all for now. — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for a thorough review, The Most Comfortable Chair! Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb))talk 00:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    A lot of research and hardwork went into writing this article. It covers all major aspects and utilizes its sources to the fullest. The quality of prose is good, and it meets the criteria. Thank you for your great work, Sdkb — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Thanks so much for your contributions, @RogueScholar! I'm very impressed you managed to find Walton's full middle name, which had eluded me (given that it's "Brosius," I can't blame her for not using it much haha). I've added those to the body.

On the matter of whether or not to include an infobox, I'm not sure if you're aware, but that was extremely controversial for many years, becoming known as the "infobox wars," and it's under discretionary sanctions for that reason. There are various arguments for and against, including the WP:DISINFOBOX essay I linked in my initial revert of the talk banners here, but to speak to your particular concern about feeding Google/voice assistants, that can be accomplished through Wikidata; I've ensured that Walton's entry now includes everything in the infobox. Beyond that, though, I don't feel that an infobox is a good fit for this article, since given the nature of Walton's work, it's better described narratively, whereas the infobox makes it look like she was mainly a mathematician by giving undue weight to e.g. her theses. It also extends nearly the entire length of the article, displacing the quote/images, something that will get worse once the table of contents is no longer at the top in New Vector. For those reasons, I'm going to restore the status quo without an infobox. I hope that helps explain my reasoning, and thanks again for improving the article. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb))talk 00:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]