Talk:Laurie E. Locascio

Laurie E. Locascio was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 28, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Joe Biden Low‑importance

	Laurie E. Locascio is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Maryland Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2022)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 13:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look this over. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 13:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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):
Putting inline wikidata links is generally not necessary, per MOS:IWL. The five of these should be removed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The citations are formatted nicely. However, the article is over-reliant on sources close to the subject. Out of 38 footnotes, I count 14 footnotes pointing to Locasio's own work, 15 footnotes pointing to sources written by her employers (White House/UMD/NIST), and 9 to WP:IS. The article should be filled out with information from independent sourcing.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The content of the article is a little too much like a curriculum vitae: I count more than a dozen degrees/awards/medals/fellowships, but very little coverage of the content of her scientific work. I'd suggest removing references to awards that are not covered by independent sources, and expanding coverage of the "115 scientific papers and 12 patents" that were briefly mentioned. The coverage needs much more detail overall.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Represents the sources currently in the article. As above, the weight of closely connected sources needs adjustment.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No issues here.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
A single headshot is helpful, but more images would really improve the article.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
@TJMSmith: The article has some substantial information, but still needs a significant expansion for more than a brief summary of Locassio's career. The content needs refocusing away from a list of qualifications to more substantial coverage of the details of her scientific and administrative work. Right now, I agree with the current talk page classification: it's about a C-class article. Sorry the review is a bit critical, I hope this assessment is constructive to help improve the article. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 14:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Forbes72, thank you for the constructive criticism of the article! It is much appreciated. I'll work on this as time allows. Hopefully other editors will also benefit from your feedback. TJMSmith (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]