Talk:Hilda Bull

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice Work

Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 11:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks for taking on this review! I've responded to your initial comments below. MCE89 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Hilda Bull c.1905.jpg: Could you add the relevant page of the cited source at Commons. US PD tag is missing at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks, both should now be fixed.

Source review

• Could you list all the cited books in the Biography section? Borsoka (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I've currently only included the Fitzpatrick book in the bibliography because that is the only source where I've used sfns. I think full citations should hopefully work for the other sources since I only cite one page range from each of those?
• References 1a-b, 2, 9, 34, 60 checked. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• Why is Sydney linked, but Melbourne not?
  • Fixed
• ...and graduated in March 1906 Perhaps this could be deleted, with the date included in the opening sentence of the section’s second paragraph for concision.
  • Good point, done
• ...a strong dislike of America... Perhaps "of USA"?
  • Changed to "United States"
• ... Hilda began working as a doctor ... When?
  • I can't find a source that gives a specific date, but I've added that it was soon after her arrival in London
• Introduce Vance Palmer with two or three words.
  • Done
• Delink Prichard when she is mentioned for the second time.
  • Done
• A link to inoculation?
  • Done
• ...it was estimated... By whom?
  • The source doesn't specify, but I've changed this to ...it was estimated in The Herald...
• .... her close friend Katherine Susannah... Delete.
  • Done
• ...formalising a separation of sorts between Louis and Hilda... I would delete this and rephrase the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Rephrased
• I think the lead should be shortened by about 15%.
  • Shortened
• That they movied to Hague is not clear from the main text. Borsoka (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Rephrased, hopefully clearer now?

I enjoy reading articles about less well-known figures in human history, culture, and science, so this was a real pleasure. I appreciate you creating such a clear and captivating article! You might consider adding a few references to recently published academic works — this could make the article even stronger before you request a peer review. I truly look forward to hopefully seeing this article among the featured candidates soon. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)