# Talk:Barbara Rae-Venter

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barbara Rae-Venter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Comments shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
All concerns addressed
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
All concerns addressed
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: 
Sources appropriately formatted.
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: 
Only non-ideal sources are the website and the newsletter; they are used for non-controversial information.
C. It contains no original research: 
Spotchecked sources are fine.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig's tool is clear; spotchecks are clear.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Broad enough, but see comment below about length
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
No extraneous info
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
No issues that I can find.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
no stability issues.
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: 
No images yet, but see comments below
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Per above
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Comments addressed, passing shortly.


### Comments
Where it isn't disruptive to the flow of the text, I much prefer "United States" as an adjective over "American"; the latter term, while used as a demonym for poeple from the US in English, has both historically and in other languages been used for different sets of people.
does this refer to the first sentence?  Or throughout?
Throughout, really, but especially where the change can be made without the text becoming awkward
Link PhD and BA at first use. Spell out BA, since that's a less common term.
Done.
"Rae-Venter has several peer-reviewed scientific publications focusing on cancer research." This is uncited.
I tweaked the wording and found a supporting citation.
"family tree sharing site" I know what you mean, but an older reader may be flummoxxed; I'd suggest "website for sharing family trees".
Fixed.
I'd suggest changing "birth father" to "biological father".
Fixed.
"DNAAdoption.org" the specific website isn't necessary unless it's independently notable
Fixed
"searching for the targeted profile" This is jargon-y, and I'm not sure exactly what it means.
I updated this to make it clearer, they are searching for DNA profiles that are related to the woman.  Let me know if this needs some more explanation.
"In addition to identifying..." I'd suggest moving this sentence back to where you're still discussing the victim, rather than the kidnapper.
It isn't clear what it was Rae-Venter could do that the professionals could not. Is there any information available about this?
"and provided structure to the team's genetic search efforts" This sounds a little like corporate-speak. What does this mean? If you're unsure, leave it out, and just say she was a part of the team.
I have expanded on this.  Really, its that there aren't a lot of professionals (or weren't at the time) who construct family trees - understanding the second cousin / third cousin / shared ancestors etc.  Genealogy has been perfected (for lack of a better term) by hobbyists, rather than professionals.
It's a little odd to describe Craig Venter, the Craig Venter, only as "an American soldier on leave from the Vietnam War". You don't need a lot, but what he's really notable for should be mentioned.
Good idea, I have added some additional context.
The little nugget in the lead about an adopted family member isn't in the body; there shouldn't be any unique material in the lead, really, as it's supposed to be a summary.
Fixed.
Is there any commentary on her name change? Presumably she hyphenated upon marrying Venter, but it would be nice to know; and it's interesting that she didn't drop it when they divorced. If there's nothing available, though, that's fine.
Nothing I could find with a reference.  I'd suspect she didn't drop it when they divorced due to the publications she had under that name, but its just a guess.
In general, this is a very short article. It hits the highlights, so I'm not going to fail it, but I would strongly recommend scraping through the sources again for anything that's not in here.
I have expanded some of this.  The topic is getting more coverage, so there was some new material
The infobox mentions her geneaology work, and her law work, but not her cancer research; why is that?
I had kept the infobox to the work that she was notable for, but I have added it.
I'd drop the last paper in the bibliography; she's not first author, and it's a much less well-known journal compared to the rest.
Done.
If there's no available images of Rae-Venter, that's fine; but you could find a non-murderer photo illustrating the Golden State killings, though, I think.
I am working through this, and should be able to complete everything within the standard 7 day hold period. I will let you know if I run into problems.  Thanks for the review!  Canada Hky (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Please ping me when you're done, as I might miss it otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I reached out to Barbara Rae-Venter through her website to ask if she would be willing to release a picture. She said she has purchased the copyright to the photo in the NYT article and is willing to release it under a compatible license. Work in progress on that. In the meantime, she said this about the article:
Please note that there is a major error in the narrative that has been put together.  I do not and have never worked with/for Parabon Nanolabs.  I have taken over and solved many cases that Parabon failed to solve in the period that they contracted to work on a case.  I can send whoever is updating this Wikipedia page a list of the cases to date that I have assisted on solving.
Just thought I'd let you know. If you have questions/concerns let me know; she may be willing to respond to further emails. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort and the heads up!  I removed that sentence.  The paper that was used in the citation is a primary article from Parabon Nanolabs, so there are a few issues with that sentence.  Canada Hky (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I think I have addressed all the issues raised in the initial GA review.  If you find that I missed something, please let me know.  I have deferred on the photo, as it looks like we may be able to get a good one through AjPolino's efforts.  Canada Hky (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Canada Hky: There was a minor point about reordering that you missed; in the interests of wrapping this up quickly I did it myself. I would encourage you to add something illustrating the GSK anyway, as it would still add to the article even if a picture of Rae-Venter is found; but I won't insist on it before passing this. Nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)