Talk:Evelyn Gandy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily reviews this. The more women's bios as GA and FA, the better. Thank you for bringing this to GAN. This looks in very good shape at first glance. More soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Definitely meets the requirements. Just a few minor comments, none stopping me from passing:

As the only woman in her 1943 law school class, she won a state oratorical contest --> this may just be me, but this construction gives an air of causality, which I assume is misplaced
- Removed "as".
saying "we are now --> saying "We are now" as per MOS:INOROUT
- Done.
which allow public funds deposited in private banks to earn interest, allowing --> repetition of allow
- Replaced with "enabled".
she also opposed an unsuccessful attempt to amend --> this is a bit hard to follow with so many negatives .. is it something along the lines of "she helped block an attempt to amend"?
- "Helped block" I think overstates her role, but I've trimmed this to "she also opposed an attempt to amend", since mere "attempt" implies it failed.
emery boards --> link?
- Thought there wasn't one, but nail file works.
30.49 percent of the vote,[38] while Winter received 25 percent --> I find the 2 decimals a bit overkill, especially given the no decimals for 25
- Was working with what was given; replaced with "about 30 percent".
Gandy's reputation was harmed by her association with Finch and the fact that she was a woman. --> not sure if we can say that her reputation was harmed by the fact she was a woman
- What exactly do you mean? Should I use a more generic word than "reputation" e.g. "standing"? Sources agree, Gandy's overall prospects were absolutely damaged by the fact that she was not a man.
  - Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I mean is that I find it odd that gender can harm a reputation. As you say it harmed her prospects, that seems a better choice of word.
Due to the latter factor, --> Not so elegant. Perhaps something along the lines of "To contrast her .."
- For the sake of not repeating "contrast" again in the same few sentences, I've changed this to "To capitalize on the latter factor"
run-off and runoff: both spellings appear in the article; pick one
- Done.
"one issue candidate." --> "one issue candidate". as per MOS:INOROUT
- Done.
Apparently, lieutenant governor is the ceiling --> Apparently, Lieutenant Governor is the ceiling
- Per MOS:JOBTITLES, I'm not sure about that one.
  - Thanks for the reference to MOS:JOBTITLES, I had not seen that. Useful. There 14 uses of Lieutenant Governor and only this one has lowercase. My interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLES is that many more should have lowercase. The one in the first sentence of the lead for instance should be lowercase I think.

Sourcing

Quality and formatting are fine. Just a few comments:

Infox has "26th Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi" --> the number 26 is not mentioned in the body, so needs a source. Also check the other fatcs in the infobox
- I've removed all the (unsourced) ordinals from the infobox. The Lt. Gov situation is complicated because at one point Mississippi abolished the office before bringing it back, and it seems whoever did the ordinals across the Lt. Gov articles neglected to include the earlier generation. All Lt. Govs up to Gandy's successor are listed here (p. 30) but even if it's technically allowed under WP:CALC, I'd rather not assign numbers where sources didn't think it important to.
Abbie Whigham Gandy[1] --> could this reference just be moved to the end of the sentence? Same for [9] and [14]
- I'd be hesitant to, since those citation support exactly what precedes them. I generally avoid combining refs unless splicing a sentence with the individual cites would get unnecessarily complicated by doing so.
Spotcheck: 3 7 12 17 21 all fine

Media

All fine. You may want to add alt text.

Overall, it looks very good. Just the infobox unsourced info to fix, really, the rest is nice to have. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All good. Great work. Just a few extra bits for you to consider ("reputation" and MOS:JOBTITLES, see above). Promoting anyway. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, done what I can to address these, thank you for the review! -Indy beetle (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]