Talk:Gerri Major/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 10:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add comments below as I go through the article; it might take me two or three days to complete the review.

One thing occurs to me immediately: why is so much good material buried in the notes? I can see that some of it is just contextual, but there's some information there that I think would be worth bringing up into the main text. This isn't an issue for promotion to GA, just a suggestion.
FamilySearch isn't a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned; the material can be user-contributed, which disqualifies it. Some of the data you're relying on it for seems available elsewhere, such as in the Who's Who entry.
Following up your comment below about this, I did some digging in the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard, and it appears that neither the SSI nor census data is considered a reliable source by itself. The problem is partly that these sources generally have to be combined with other data to determine that they apply to the subject of the article, which violates the stricture against original research, and partly that they are known to contain some inaccuracies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not instantly clear from the opening couple of sentences that Gerri's mother died while giving birth to Gerri, and not a later child.
What's the source for the statement about the work-study scholarship?
In a couple of cases you have more sources than necessary; I wouldn't fail the article for this, but I'd suggest removing unnecessary citations -- they clutter the article and make it harder to read, and they don't add any value for the reader. For example, you have four references for "In 1919 Major taught at the Stephen A. Douglas Elementary School, the same school she had attended as a child"; surely we don't need all four.
I added a clipping for one of the articles (from New York Age) and can do more if you want me to; I've left a note on the article talk page since that's not really anything to do with the GA review.
"The release, which appeared in the New York Age on March 7, set Major onto a career path as newspaper columnist and public relations specialist": the cited source doesn't say that; can you justify this statement?
The mention of her as being known as a world traveller seems to rely on the statement in Ebony that she was a globe-trotter; I think this might be making a little too much of the statement. How about a blander statement, such as "She was well-traveled, having visited Egypt, Brazil and Argentina among other countries, and was married overseas twice, in Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike: Is it appropriate for the author of the article to respond to comments at this point? I got into the habit of using notes for elaboration and not just additional context after an editor noted that another article of mine was overlong. I probably erred on the side of caution. In using FamilySearch I try to rely most heavily on instances where there is a scan of an original document. Perhaps I could include a statement in FamilySearch refs to indicate that I'm using a scanned document, not the FS summary. I'll revise the statement about the death of Major's mother, give a ref for the work-study scholarship, and remove dupe citations. I've responded (below) to your offer about Newspaper.com clippings. I'll revise the "set Major onto a career path" statement. My intention was to signal a turning point as lead to the sections that follow. -- Jeff, Delabrede (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means go ahead and respond while I'm still reviewing. I'd suggest interspersing any future replies amongst my comments above, and indenting the replies (with a leading "*:") to make the threads more readable. I'll take a look at the FamilySearch documents tonight. Re the turning point: if you feel it's just a non-controversial restatement of material cited elsewhere, it can stay; I'll have another look at it in that light. More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished going through the article and there are no other significant issues. I'll place this nomination on hold; let me know when you would like me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent edits, the only remaining points are:

Three remaining uses of FamilySearch, which is not a reliable source. I see that the underlying primary documents are linked, but my understanding is that this is not permitted as it requires original research to connect these records with the subject of the article. If you feel that it's important these sources stay, I will ask at the reliable sources noticeboard about these particular documents.

-- I'll try to find other sources for the scanned documents. I'm not sure they'd be more acceptable than FamilySearch, but it seems worth a try. If you have time and inclination, I would welcome views from the reliable sources. I find census reports, passport applications, draft registrations, and other scanned documents to be valuable sources which, though they are archival or primary sources, are published when FS and other organizations make them available. -- Jeff, Delabrede (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- I've replaced the FamilySearch ref with a ref to the same document on Internet Archive. I removed a FamilySearch ref to an Ontario document that had little relevance. That leaves only one FamilySearch ref: the ref to the Brazil visa document. I've left it for the time being because it's the only source I have giving the full names of Major's parents. I'll take it out (or you can) if you think that's advisable. -- Jeff, Delabrede (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and see what the RSN discussion concludes. I suspect pointing to another copy of the same document won't resolve the underlying problem, which is the use of primary documents, but we'll see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about Major's mother's death in childbirth still seems less clear than it could be. Currently it reads: "Major was born in Chicago on July 29, 1894. Her birth name was Geraldyn Hodges. After her mother died in childbirth her father arranged for her to be adopted by his sister-in-law and her husband, Maud and David Lawrence, who lived nearby." How about: "Major was born in Chicago on July 29, 1894; her mother died giving birth to here" as the first sentence? However, there's another problem, which is that the source is just the census page for when she is seven years old. I think you need another source for all the information in this sentence. I've changed it.

-- Thanks for pointing this out. I overlooked the problem the last time I read through the article. I've made some further changes to refs. -- Jeff, Delabrede (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- I'm grateful for your careful review. I've now made an effort to read the piece with fresh eyes and have made some changes to remove repetition, eliminate a remaining unneeded ref, and correct some awkward phrasing. -- Jeff, Delabrede (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked at WP:RSN; you can follow any discussion there. I didn't include two of the uses of the census record because I couldn't tell exactly what you were using it to support. Can you take a look and see if it's really necessary in those cases? In one case it follows "Lawrence was a chiropodist whose office was near the family's home in Bronzeville's Grand Boulevard and the family had sufficient wealth to give Major an extravagant debutante ball"; are you using it for the location of the home? In the other case it cites "Major's first name, Geraldyn, was sometimes (wrongly) given as Geraldyne or Geraldine"; as far as I can tell you only use it to support the mis-spelling "Geraldine", which I don't think you need if this is really the only source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- I'll remove the ref. There's no need for it as support of first name spelling. The uncle's profession isn't very significant. The Bronzeville location provides a parallel with her later residence in Harlem, but it isn't crucial to an encyclopedia article. -- Jeff, Delabrede (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- And, I just noticed, I have Bronzeville from the Ebony obit. -- Jeff, Delabrede (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great; that just leaves the Brazilian immigration card. Let's see what the RSN says about that. I'll strike the other two points there since they no longer apply. I did notice you now have a cite error you'll need to clean up -- must have left some debris when making the recent changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- I cleaned up debris and removed the visa ref. I should have removed the ref right after you pointed out the information in the Who's Who entry for Major. It gives her parents' names with sufficient specificity; the more precise visa doc really isn't needed. -- Jeff, Delabrede (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-- It's now irrelevant, but there seems to me to be a reasonably good argument that a primary source, like the visa document, can be used in an article so long as it has been published ("by a reliable source") and so long as the writer does not attempt to interpret the source (merely uses facts it gives) or otherwise misuse it. I take Family Search to be reliable because it's a stable operation, presenting the documents without editorial comment (etc.), and because the publishing process does not require volunteer transcribers to be involved. The issue matters to me, as I said, because I would like to be able to use scans of passport applications, draft registrations, ship manifests, and the like that are accessible via FS. -- Jeff, Delabrede (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and pass the article, since the link is removed. I take your point about the visa document; I don't run into that in my own editing since I haven't done many biographies, so I'm not as familiar as I should be with the policy. Let's leave the question at the reliable sources noticeboard and see what comments appear there. Looking at WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY, I'm not hopeful, but we'll see. Anyway, Gerri Major is now a GA; congratulations on a thorough and well-written article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]