# Talk:Margot Becke-Goehring

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)

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)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

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): 
No issues for the illustrative structure.  The portrait is fair use, and all tagging and justification for fair use seems appropriate per my research.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: