# Talk:Catherine Neill

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catherine Neill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello!  I am happy to review this article for GA status.  I typically go through and leave comments and suggestions, and then once any issues that need to be addressed have been addressed, I go through and review off a checklist to make sure everything has been covered by the official criteria.  Canada Hky (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


### Initial comments
There is a bit of inconsistency between British and American spelling for 'pediatric' - outside of quotes, per Wikipedia's policy on consistency, it should be the same throughout.
"Neill first retired in 1989 after working at Hopkins for the better part of six decades, but she returned to during a period of great clinical demand" - I think there is something missing after 'to' in this sentence.
Could the very short "Personal life" section be folded into another section, or expanded?  It could fit nicely into an adjusted death and legacy section (see below)
Similar - the death and legacy section has a chunk of material that is probably best suited for the end of the career section (retirement and return to work).
The formatting of her selected publications should be consistent.  All journal articles should have DOI and PMID.  I would suggest arranging them chronologically as well.
The image looks good, with an appropriate license.
For the Lancet obituary - could an access date be added?
No paraphrasing issues or copyvios - all quotes are appropriately attributed.
The date formats change throughout the articles:  September 3, 1921 vs 23 February 2006.
Those are what I found on an initial read through, I don't think anything too onerous.  If there are any questions or clarifications needed, please don't hesitate to ask.  Canada Hky (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Canada Hky: Thanks for your helpful comments! I have addressed everything, with the exception of not being able to find a DOI for two of the older journal articles. ceranthor 15:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


### Full list
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)  Thank you for your help getting this article to GA status, and your attention to detail during this review.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
All issues addressed here.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall: Congratulations - this is a well written biography for a very well deserving cardiologist!
Pass/Fail: