# Talk:Jean Purdy

thank you tweet Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jean Purdy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: SkywalkerEccleston (talk · contribs) 14:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Source review

The sources cited are academic journals or reliable newspapers.
Why is Orbach (2018) to be regarded as a reliable source?
Removed
Add ISSN to each source.
Fix reference 13 (Johnson 2015). Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Done
Some sources are cited in section "Sources", while others are mentioned only as citation. Why? For instance, Halliday (2019) and Orbach (2018) are cited multiple times, but they are not listed among the sources.
Corrected this
Weule (2018) still only mentioned among the citations. Borsoka (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete the lengthy quotes from the citations to avoid possible copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Done
References 6, 17, 22 verified.
It was Purdy who first saw that a fertilised egg cell was dividing to make new cells. Does reference 11 verify this statement?
Removed this reference
Brown's birth vindicated the development team and put pressure on the MRC—they quickly became a major supporter of the team's research. Rephrase to avoid close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Sentence has been updated
Comments

Some information about her mother?
Added
A link to prefect?
Done
...but was unhappy... Do we know why? Is "unhappy" the best term?
Updated
...a research post locally... Do we know at which institution?
Updated
A link to tissue rejection?
Done
Links to the first open-heart surgery and heart transplant?
Done
Introduce Robert Edwards.
Done
Add the full name of Steptoe and introduce him when he is first mentioned in the main text.
Done
Link laparoscopy and explain it with two or three words.
Done
A link to infertile?
Sentence removed
During this time they had to endure criticism and hostility to their work. By whom and why?
Elaborated
...a fertilised egg... I would say "a fertilised egg cell" and link egg cell.
Done
...changed perceptions... How?
Elaborated
...the increased demand... For what?
Explain IVF and link when it is mentioned in the main text.
Explain MRes and link when it is mentioned in the main text.
Linked and elaborated on
Purdy was portrayed by Thomasin McKenzie in the 2024 biographical drama film Joy, which similarly follows the development of IVF. I would rephrase because after the previous sentence, the introduction of this sentence is a surprise.
Done
In comparison with the main text, additional information should not be added in the lead as the lead should provide us with a summary of the main text. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.
Corrected
Thank you for this important article. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

...spent more time in at Oldham... Some context?
A link to endocrine or endocrine monitoring?
Introduce Clinical Research Board and Medical Research Council with two or three words. Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I have addressed all of the above notes - let me know if any more changes are required. --SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Borsoka I have since actioned your notes  SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)