Talk:Cindy Judd Hill

Cindy Judd Hill has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 11, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Biography

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

Pittsburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area 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.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Red: Alphabet run: C & D (2023)

This article was created or improved during the Alphabet run: C & D edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in August 2023. 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

Passed. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 19:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cindy Judd Hill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 16:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article. Comments to follow soon in the table below. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 16:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammielh I have completed the initial review. Only a few very minor points from me then I think it's good to go! Really interesting subject and well-written, thank you for all your work on the article so far. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 17:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lead Maybe wikilink "pageant". Early life Y Discrimination lawsuit Y Activism Y Death and legacy In March 2013, she spoke at a panel discussion at the Heinz History Center titled "Sisterhood in Pittsburgh: Women's Liberation from the 1960s to Today" alongside Molly Rush, Alma Speed Fox, Patricia McCann and Jeanne Clark. Was this bit meant to go in "Later life"?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sections Y Layout Y Words to watch None identified. Fiction N/A List incorporation N/A
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are cited correctly and in the appropriate layout.
	2b. 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).	Source spot-check Crompton, Janice (March 13, 2019). ~~The couple moved to Thornburg, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh, where her husband worked as a civil engineer. I can't see this info in the source?~~ ~~"The couple settled into family life in Thornburg" per the source; I added a citation for her husband's career Sammielh (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply] ~~The school district required teachers to inform them of a pregnancy within four months and take unpaid maternity leave for a year. Can't see this in the source either.~~ Rubinkowski, Leslie (March 7, 1993). Y This source also includes p.81, can you change the citation to reflect that? Amended, although I don't know how you add the second link. Sammielh (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think it's fine to leave as is - I'm not sure how to either. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ Love, Barbara J. (2006). ~~Hill was also an executive board member of Pennsylvania NOW. I can't find this in the source.~~ Wukas, Mark (January 16, 1994). Y "Dorothy (aka Cindy) Judd Hill". In Sisterhood. Y I am content with the reliability of sources used. They are largely local papers but widely-circulated in the area. Other sources are appropriate within the context of the article subject (e.g. feminist organisations).
	2c. it contains no original research.	I am content from source spot-checks that there has been no OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I am content from spot-checks that there is no copyvio or plagiarism. Copyvio detector brings up nothing of concern.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	From reading sources, I am content that the article covers the main aspects of the subject's life and achievements.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focussed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article content is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No evidence of edit-warring or instability. Majority of edits are by nominator.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	N/A
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	N/A
	7. Overall assessment.

I've made the changes and added a couple comments above. Thank you for picking up this review! Sammielh (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammielh Thank you for addressing the changes and for your work on this fascinating article. Very happy to promote to GA now, well done! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 19:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.