Laura de Force Gordon 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: June 1, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would be great to comb this student piece for more information/resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisVilla ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I note that this is tagged as being a subject for the LGBT studies WikiProject, but other than the one letter-to-the-editor to Ms. magazine, none of the sources I have at hand say Gordon was a lesbian, and one quotes a private letter saying her husband had been "nearer and dearer than life" (Babcock, p. 24). I'm not sure where to go next on this issue: if there are credible sources on the issue (perhaps the Stryker book, which is not online?) we should obviously add the information, but the Ms. letter seemed very trivial, and I don't have any other sources to add. Noting that here and will return to it when I can. — Luis ( talk) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.
For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Historically, LGBT people often did not come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification is, in many cases, impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For a dead person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such — but no such doubt exists about the sexuality of Oscar Wilde or Radclyffe Hall.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ComputerJA ( talk · contribs) 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be happy to review this article. I took a look at the article and I think this is ripe for promotion. The layout, prose, and sources look great. My review usually consists of two parts. In my first part, I will review the article's prose and post any suggestions/mistakes that need to be addressed. In my second part, I will try to go through every source and make sure the information is attributed correctly. Thanks and look forward to reviewing this! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@ LuisVilla: Hi, thank you for writing this article. Below is my GA review. I decided to make several changes myself to make it easier for you. Please check the updates and feel free to disagree with any of them or with any of my questions/comments/concerns below. Let me know if you have any questions! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 05:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Good catch. I think I extrapolated from another source, but can't find it now and didn't cite it, so... away it goes.
The constitutional change (all jobs) and the statute (limited to lawyers) were different things, which I think the Penn State source confuses. I've tried to clarify a bit in the article here. Further suggestions welcome. Earlier versions of this article (before my involvement) relied very heavily on the PSU article; I've tried to remove it everywhere I can, to be honest. This finally pushed me to remove it altogether.
I honestly hadn't considered FA. I do like that source, and the annotated biography is great, but I only came to it late in the game - will consider at some later date!
It's quite on-topic, but the source initially felt so speculative to me that I was somewhat reluctant to include it. On re-reading, it's stronger than I thought, so including.
Tracing the sources to flesh it out, the paper's claim is... not really supported by their citations? e.g., that paper goes to another paper, which goes to a book, which doesn't actually say what either paper says about the book. I'm sure it is supported somewhere, but not very inspiring, I'm afraid.
I'm not finding anything but will perhaps make another pass soon.
Added, though did not hyperlink as I'm not sure it is the same organization (nothing I've seen in other sources suggest she was an Adventist).
Added the Sacramento Bee part; there's a whole thing to be done about the speaker's circuit but that's not going to happen tonight - perhaps as an FA push.
Great catch - I removed the more firm language from the body of the article a few months ago, but did not catch the categories. I'll remove them momentarily. That said, I think we need a better title than "Legacy" for that section - her legacy is that women can vote and practice law; 75+ year later speculation about her sexual orientation does not a legacy make. No great suggestions yet, though.
Picture here. Will try to upload and use later. — Luis ( talk) 05:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Laura de Force Gordon 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: June 1, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would be great to comb this student piece for more information/resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisVilla ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I note that this is tagged as being a subject for the LGBT studies WikiProject, but other than the one letter-to-the-editor to Ms. magazine, none of the sources I have at hand say Gordon was a lesbian, and one quotes a private letter saying her husband had been "nearer and dearer than life" (Babcock, p. 24). I'm not sure where to go next on this issue: if there are credible sources on the issue (perhaps the Stryker book, which is not online?) we should obviously add the information, but the Ms. letter seemed very trivial, and I don't have any other sources to add. Noting that here and will return to it when I can. — Luis ( talk) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.
For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Historically, LGBT people often did not come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification is, in many cases, impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For a dead person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such — but no such doubt exists about the sexuality of Oscar Wilde or Radclyffe Hall.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ComputerJA ( talk · contribs) 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be happy to review this article. I took a look at the article and I think this is ripe for promotion. The layout, prose, and sources look great. My review usually consists of two parts. In my first part, I will review the article's prose and post any suggestions/mistakes that need to be addressed. In my second part, I will try to go through every source and make sure the information is attributed correctly. Thanks and look forward to reviewing this! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@ LuisVilla: Hi, thank you for writing this article. Below is my GA review. I decided to make several changes myself to make it easier for you. Please check the updates and feel free to disagree with any of them or with any of my questions/comments/concerns below. Let me know if you have any questions! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 05:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Good catch. I think I extrapolated from another source, but can't find it now and didn't cite it, so... away it goes.
The constitutional change (all jobs) and the statute (limited to lawyers) were different things, which I think the Penn State source confuses. I've tried to clarify a bit in the article here. Further suggestions welcome. Earlier versions of this article (before my involvement) relied very heavily on the PSU article; I've tried to remove it everywhere I can, to be honest. This finally pushed me to remove it altogether.
I honestly hadn't considered FA. I do like that source, and the annotated biography is great, but I only came to it late in the game - will consider at some later date!
It's quite on-topic, but the source initially felt so speculative to me that I was somewhat reluctant to include it. On re-reading, it's stronger than I thought, so including.
Tracing the sources to flesh it out, the paper's claim is... not really supported by their citations? e.g., that paper goes to another paper, which goes to a book, which doesn't actually say what either paper says about the book. I'm sure it is supported somewhere, but not very inspiring, I'm afraid.
I'm not finding anything but will perhaps make another pass soon.
Added, though did not hyperlink as I'm not sure it is the same organization (nothing I've seen in other sources suggest she was an Adventist).
Added the Sacramento Bee part; there's a whole thing to be done about the speaker's circuit but that's not going to happen tonight - perhaps as an FA push.
Great catch - I removed the more firm language from the body of the article a few months ago, but did not catch the categories. I'll remove them momentarily. That said, I think we need a better title than "Legacy" for that section - her legacy is that women can vote and practice law; 75+ year later speculation about her sexual orientation does not a legacy make. No great suggestions yet, though.
Picture here. Will try to upload and use later. — Luis ( talk) 05:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)