GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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.