Jump to content

Talk:Dorothy Olsen/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take a look at this one. Harrias talk 18:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 6: Illustrated:

  • All images are appropriately tagged, and are relevant.
  • The infobox image could do with a caption to give an idea of when it is from.
The infobox image (from https://www.512aw.afrc.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000372466/mediaid/138235/), unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a specific date.

@Taterian: I see you were the original uploader of File:WASP Dorothy Kocher Olsen.JPG, which you annotated as "c1944". Do you remember where that date came from, or was it just a guess? See the above review for why I'm curious. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but lacking a WP:RS, I'm going to just leave the photo undated. I did add a caption, however, that mentions fifinella. And I found a couple of interesting sources that I added to Talk:Fifinella. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck in your investigation! --Taterian (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2: Verifiable with no original research:

  • What makes "edwardsmemorial.com" a reliable source?
  • A minor consistency issue: refs #5 and #10 provide locations, where other news sources do not. It might be useful to add it in for the others, at least where the location isn't obvious from the name of the publication.
  • What does "ORDP" in ref #8 stand for?
  • Per Wikipedia:Newspapers.com, sources from there should be clipped to make them accessible to all. Using |via=Newspapers.com is also recommended. (Note that this is not part of the GA criteria, so doesn't affect this review.)
  • Ref #13 "Women Airforce Service Pilot.." needs the author details and date of publication adding. Harrias talk 20:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Edwardsmemorial.com, this was only cited for the names of her children, which are also covered in the other source (News Tribune) for that sentence, so I've just removed the edwards citation.
News locations, I've added those. For the two existing ones, the locations were embedded in the work field, which I've refactored to publication-place to match the others. I've left the Washington Post and New York times alone, as those seem self-descriptive.
ORDP, no clue how that got there. Deleted.
Newspapers.com clippings: done.
Ref #13, done.

Criteria 1: Well written:

  • "Her assignment was ferrying new aircraft of many different types, from the factories where they were built to airbases." No need for the comma.
done
  • What is a "checkride"? Can a wikilink, explanatory note, or alternative phrasing be used?
done
  • Use {{convert}} for "40-hp" and "3100 hp".
done
  • No need to wikilink Portland twice in the final paragraph of the Early life section.
done
  • "..25,000 applicants, of which 1879 were accepted and 1074 graduated." Be consistent; if you use a comma in 25,000, also use it in 1,879 and 1,074.
done
  • Also, be consistent regarding 6th Ferry Group or Sixth Ferrying Group.
done
  • "After the war, she was said to fly commercially for Western Skyways." "she was said to" is an expression of doubt, and should be avoided without inline attribution. In fact, this whole final paragraph, due to the uncertainty, would be benefit from more inline attribution.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The specific "she was said" statement has an in-line citation to the Capital Journal article which says that. And, yes, there is uncertainty, which is explained in the next sentence; there's multiple sources, some of which say she flew commercially, some of which say she didn't. It's unclear which of those is accurate, hence the expression of doubt.
The way this has been rewritten is much better, thank you. Harrias talk 20:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally, I would prefer to see the "Honors and awards" section blended into the prose, rather than as a standalone list.
The way the article flows now, the first three sections are, "stuff that happened before the WASPs", "stuff that happened during the WASPs", and "stuff that happened after the WASPs" (i.e. Honors and awards). I think that flow makes sense.
Update, I've done some more re-structuring of things. I've largely combined the "Honors and awards" and "Personal life" sections, and make them more prose, less list style, while still keeping the "before-during-after main structure. Thank you for this comment, the new structure is much improved.
  • "As of the time of her death, she was one of 38 WASPs still alive." This doesn't make any sense. At the time of her death, she was not alive.
Reworded to "prior to her death".

Criteria 3: Broad in its coverage:

While the GA criteria do not require an article to be "comprehensive", I think the reader would benefit from some more information about Olsen, for example:
I've included some of this material in the section about her early life, re-worked where I mention the death of her fiance, and added more details about her training.
Added.
@Harrias: I think I've addressed all of your points in this round. Take another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One specific query, I'm not sure if the paragraph about her hearing damage and cochlear implants really adds anything. It may be true, but it's not really germaine to the overall story of her life. I'm thinking it should be taken out. What are your thoughts on that? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few minor copy-edits, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a Good article now. Harrias talk 20:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Olsen/GA1&oldid=941136948"