Talk:Fern Hobbs/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm placing this on hold for a week to allow for improvements. It has many of the characteristics of a good article, but would need some significant improvement in the writing quality before I would pass it.

Well written

This could stand to improve quite a bit. Right now, many of the sentences are disjointed from one another, with abrupt changes of subject occurring from one sentence to the next, and there often seems to be little rhyme or reason to how the paragraphs are organized. Besides that, the article relies almost entirely on simple sentences, and it would be nice to see some variety in sentence structure. I'd need to see some substantial improvement in these areas before I pass the article. Some specific issues:

"In addition to her work she also helped raise her younger brother and sister while studying stenography, studying the law, and working as a secretary." - a couple of issues here: first, using both "also" and "in addition to" is unnecessarily wordy, in my view. Second, the list of her activities would flow better if one instance of "studying" was removed, to read "...while studying stenography and law, and working as a secretary." or something similar.

Done -Pete (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1913, Fern Hobbs graduated from Willamette University College of Law with a Bachelor of Laws degree. That year she was also admitted to the state bar." These sentences should probably be merged. Besides that, there's really no need to use her full name here.

Done -Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In her role as personal secretary..." It was just established before this that she was his private secretary; there's no need to repeat the role immediately after.

Done Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The break between the first two paragraphs of "Copperfield, Oregon" is really not a natural place for a paragraph break.

Done Pete (talk)

I'd suggest merging the second and third paragraphs of this section now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Pete (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...the local government officials simply became bar keepers." This reads strangely, as though they became bar keepers in response to the lack of law enforcement personnel.

Done Pete (talk)

Good - although could you reword such that the word "officials" doesn't appear twice in the same sentence? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Pete (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to these problems..." Since this sentence comes immediately on the heels of one stating that the sale of liquor was illegal, it sounds as though the prohibition on liquor was the problem.

Done Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The governor and Hobbs also did not publicly acknowledge the accompaniment of the militia men for the same reason." What is meant by this? Did they just pretend the militia wasn't there once they got to Copperfield? This is a confusing sentence as it currently reads.

Done make more sense now I hope? -Pete (talk)

Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This diminutive woman arrived with her escorts with orders to restore order and to implement martial law if necessary." This sentence doesn't really add anything.

Done removed it. -Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This was the first time martial law had been implemented in Oregon since the Civil War." This sentence should probably go earlier, back at the part where martial law is declared.

Done -Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As writer Stewart Holbrook dryly noted, "In provincial New York City, for instance, and for three days running, the Copperfield affair crowded the Becker-Rosenthal case for front-page position."" Without context, this sentence doesn't add anything, especially since the Becker-Rosenthal case is redlinked. Either explain the quote (what makes it "dry", for example?) or delete it.

Done replaced it with a clearer quote from Holbrook. -Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"After the Copperfield Affair, she continued as Governor West's secretary until the end of his term in 1915." Since this is the first sentence of a new section, consider using the subject's name instead of a pronoun.

Done -Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Women's rights groups promoted Hobbs as a candidate to run for the governor's office, but she never ran for office." Consider replacing "ran for" with something like "sought" to avoid using the same verb twice in one sentence.

Done Katr67 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good (I see you've also eliminated the repetition of "office", which is great). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1917, with the United States entering World War I she began a long association with the Red Cross." As "with the United States entering World War I" is a parenthetical device, a comma is required after it.

Done -Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In that position Hobbs was responsible for notifying the next of kin for those who died." "for" should read "of". Also, "those who died" could probably be stated more succinctly - "casualties", maybe?

Done -Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hobbs then retired in 1948 as the secretary to the paper’s business manager." Delete "then", as it adds nothing.

Done -Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Holbrook noted during his interview..." This is the second consecutive use of the verb "noted". Try changing it, for variety.

Done -Pete (talk)

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a GA issue, but I think the article could use a few more wikilinks - for example, martial law should possibly be linked in the lead, and Carrie Nation almost certainly should be in the separated quote.

Wikilinked Nation, will look for more as I continue. -Pete (talk)

One new issue: "The actions of the governor were later challenged in court, with the Oregon Supreme Court deciding the governor's actions were within his powers." This is worded awkwardly, as it includes the phrase "actions of the governor", and later "the governor's actions". Couldn't a pronoun be worked in somehow? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Pete (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I love the rewrite. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New issues

I really hate to do this to you after all the work you've done, but there is just one more issue, and it can be easily fixed. Once you address them, I'll pass this with all haste. My initial qualms with this article have all vanished, and you deserve enormous credit for that:

"The bank, which held many assets of the Oregon Common School Fund, failed during her tenure, and her strong loyalty to her employer attracted the respect of then-Secretary of State Ben Olcott who, as a member of the State Land Board, was charged with protecting the Common School Fund." - something of a run-on sentence that should probably be broken up. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you should probably convert your new references to templates such as cite web, etc. I've seen GA reviewers refuse to pass articles on this basis, but I can't actually see anywhere in the GA criteria it says anything about it, so I won't insist on it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't feel bad -- after all you can always be bold! Kidding, I'll fix this in the next day or two..but at the moment I'm too burnt to even do this simple stuff, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the continued scrutiny, you're still coming up with excellent points, much appreciated. -Pete (talk)

This section, and therefore the entire article, is now a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Thank you for your diligent and insightful engagement with this. It's been one of the more enjoyable GA's I've been involved with -- and I feel like the article reflects that. I'll be back to work over the citations. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate

Although I obviously can't read the offline sources, everything appears to be well-referenced. Pass.

I've found a few inaccuracies along the way -- most notably, the notion that saloons were banned outright at the time. At this point I think it's fine. -Pete (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

I'm passing this, but only barely. WP:BLP1E obviously doesn't apply here, since the subject is deceased, but I am concerned that the subject may be notable for only one event (or at least that's how the article reads). I would strongly encourage expansion of the non-Copperfield sections, if at all possible. Also,

"Soon the town was disarmed and order restored, with the gambling equipment and weapons confiscated, and the saloons closed down." The obvious question here is whether there was any resistance.

I see this has been clarified; unfortunately, there's no reference supporting the statement that there was no open resistance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Pete (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the "single event" issue: the Sunset Magazine article I found clearly establishes her notability, mostly based on her being the highest-paid woman in public service in the country, and it was written before the Copperfield incident. I've added some details to the "Early life" section based on that, and rounded out her later work as well. -Pete (talk)

I agree. The good news is I'm now passing the article on this criterion with flying colours rather than grudgingly; the bad news is that now I'm going to go over the language again, and I'll probably have more issues then. So, somewhat ironically, by improving this article as you have, you've probably brought it further from being passed as a GA. But as far as I'm concerned, it was well worth it. Anyway, to the "well-written" criterion... Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Pass.

Stable

Pass.

Well illustrated

Pass. Obviously not a great picture, but it's properly tagged and does add something to the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a profile shot. -Pete (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, and properly licensed. This remains a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great review!

SarcasticIdealist, this is a fantastic review, very thorough and very helpful. I think your sense that the article might not be so close to GA is a fair one; that, combined with my incredibly busy schedule over the next week, makes me think we might not get there during the "hold" period. I'll do what I can, but if I'm not very quick, please understand it's out of a desire to address your critiques thoroughly, and not rush through it. -Pete (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.