Talk:Elizabeth Kane/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Drown Soda (talk · contribs) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Early life

• Elizabeth Dennistoun Wood was born on May 12, 1836—this should probably read "12 May 1836" if we are sticking with British English, which the lead seems to be setting up so far as dates are concerned.

General comments:

This reads quite nicely—no issues here to speak of.

Career

• She enrolled in the Female Medical College of Pennsylvania (now Drexel University Medical School) as one of its first students. She studied on and off for years, finally earning her M.D. in 1883.— when did she enroll, and how long did she study? Do we have an approximate number of years that she was attending medical school?
• As a result of her middle-upper class lifestyle and upbringing, Kane expected her husband to be the sole provider for the family.—I think "acclimated to an upper-middle-class lifestyle, Kane expected her husband..." (or something akin to that) reads less clunky.
• In 1858, they moved to McKean and Elk counties—did they live in two counties at once, or did they move from one to the other?

General comments

This is overall nicely-written, but I have a problem with the labelling of it as "Career," as there is in actuality very little information regarding her career. The bulk of it is biographical and details her time in medical school and personal relationship with her husband. I feel that the Twelve Mormon Homes Visited in Succession on a Journey through Utah to Arizona and A Gentile Account of Life in Utah's Dixie sections belong in the career section somehow, as they are the works for which she is famous; this would mean making these sub-sections in the Career section, chronologically in the order in which they were written. I also feel that the details about her later life and death do not really belong here, and should be relocated to their own section (i.e. "Later life and death") as they do not directly pertain to her career.

Religious beliefs, Views on Women, and Views on Mormons

• These are well-written, though I also feel they would be better organized as subsets under a section such as "Social and philosophical beliefs," or something of that nature (similar to the way the "Personal life" section is organized, with "marriages" and "children" as their own subsections.

References

• This may be my own preference, but I have a strong aversion to Rp citations; for bibliographic citations, Sfn is preferred as it interferes less with the body of the article; the Rp format has a footnote with an abutted page number which seems illogical. Per Template:Rp, This template should not be used unless necessary—I don't think it's "necessary" here. I'm open to debate on this, but I think in general, Sfn-references are the preferred format for articles that are GA and FA.

--Drown Soda (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your time and thoughtful comments. I made many of the changes you suggested. In regards to the citations, I agree that they interfere with the article. I just was under the impression that Template:Rp was the preferred format, so that's why I did my citations in that manner. I, however, am open to change them if you feel it is necessary to achieve good article status. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Drown Soda:, I was curious about your statement that the Sfn style is preferred for FAs and asked about it over at the FA criteria talk page. Sfn does seem to be common for pages like this one that heavily cite print sources. Citation templates are also acceptable for FAs. I think @Skyes(BYU): addressed your problems with the page--were there any other improvements the page needs before GA? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): I've just taken a look at and the article overall looks very good to me. As far as the Sfn sources go, I don't think it ever should stand in the way of an article being GA or FA, but I do think it inhibits readability and is visually distracting (especially in a dense article that contains a lot of information). I see they've been converted to Sfns in any case, which I think is beneficial for reasons mentioned above. I'll initiate the GA on it shortly as everything looks to be in top-order. --Drown Soda (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)