Talk:Jean Tatlock/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 凰兰时罗 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your work on the article. I appreciate your positive, constructive, and extensive contribution.

I offer my comments below with a disclaimer: I do not want you to make changes to the article that you don't want to make. My comments may sound terse or opinionated, but don't fall for that: in fact, I am open to discussion. So, if you disagree with something, rather than make reluctant edits (while gritting your teeth), talk to me. I'm easy to convince (or so I fancy). Moreover, I'm learning this whole process myself, so my comments are not condescending instructions set in stone, rather opening lines for a dialog.

Let's work together to make this article a GA :) 凰兰时罗 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~I believe that the lead section is too small and doesn't adequately summarize the article.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~I've got a couple of notes here:~~ I do not believe that Martin (2016) is a reliable source — it needs to be removed. A minor inconsistency in the format of citations in item 24 of notes. (Everywhere else items' titles are spelled out.) ~~Please double check your sources on the years of Jean's father in Stamford. I believe the years should be 1915—1925, not 1914—1924. Years in Harvard also need to be adjusted accordingly.~~
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I believe that such an extensive citation from Bird & Sherwin (2016) is unjustified. I think it needs to be removed completely, and position of Bird & Sherwin (2016) needs to be accurately summarized.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I do not believe that this statement: There has been, at times, speculation as to whether her death was truly a suicide or not, as it has some suspicious circumstances surrounding it,[38] but in their review of all of the arguments for and against such a scenario, historians Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin concluded that there is simply not any conclusive evidence of foul play:[39] is (a) neutral in Wikipedian sense (b) an accurate summary of Bird & Sherwin (2016). I'm not a promoter of conspiracy theories by any means, however, the usage of Bird & Sherwin (2016) to contradict "There has been, at times, speculation as to whether her death was truly a suicide or not, as it has some suspicious circumstances surrounding it" — I'm referring to your "but" there — is highly questionable, for this source is actively speculating along the same lines, which is even visible from the citation that I suggest to remove. Given the controversy here, I suggest summarizing arguments on both sides, instead of alluding to a scientific consensus for the suicide. BTW, many newspapers at the time of her death quoted a part of her alleged suicide note: "I am disgusted with everything" which you might want to include here as well.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Let's hold on till the issues are fixed/discussed.~~

I have expanded the introduction a little. Let me know if there are additional points that you think should be added.
Martin (2016) has been removed.
I have adjusted the years that her father was at Harvard and Stanford.
I have paraphrased the quote from Bird and Sherwin, but now WP:NPOV comes into play as I am speaking in Wikipedia's voice.
Added the suicide note

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hawkeye7:

Thank you for your efforts. Two finer points that remain:

It seems to me that the new version of the intro might lead some readers to conclude that the suicide was the result of FBI surveillance. Maybe some minor rephrasing?
As to NPOV issue that you raised: Bird and Sherwin's position could be paraphrased with the lead "Bird and Sherwin noted/suggested/speculated that...", followed by their thoughts that cast doubt on suicide. You may conclude with something like "However, they admit that there not enough evidence to doubt..." or something like that. I don't want to be too prescriptive on the text/style of the section, you should have latitude in this area. Please take my example as one possible way to address NPOV issue. The key thing here is that I do not believe that there is no middle ground between a direct quote and omniscient Wikipedia voice which might compromise NPOV. There are ways you could introduce Bird and Sherwin's ideas fully, at least to greater extent that you did it so far. Thoughts? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had tweaked the wording of the lead slightly to avoid this
I have rewritten the Death section. Is it acceptable now?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm not 100% sure that you take my suggestions wholeheartedly :). Just in case, I repeat: if you disagree with something that I write in here, please tell me, let's figure it out. If I don't make myself clear (which unfortunately happens every once in a while), please don't hesitate to ask. On the other hand, if my impression is wrong, and you are okay with my suggestions:

I do not see much improvement. Now the whole depression thing seems like the result of FBI actions...
I think that "odd" in "which was an odd thing to do if one intends to drug and drown oneself" should not come from omniscient Wikipedia voice and has to be attributed to those who find it odd. Otherwise, NPOV is at risk, because an opinion is stated as fact. So, you may want to use a formula similar to the one that I suggested above.

Thoughts? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much that can be done in the lead, as the facts have to appear in this order. I have moved her death into a separate paragraph.
I've removed the "odd" bit. The whole conspiracy theory is isolated in the second-last paragraph. Don't be surprised if another editor comes along and deletes it under WP:FRINGE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you mention this future hypothetical editor. Do you think that the theory deserves a mention? I thought the answer to that was a yes, because initially you had a big citation that was introducing it...

Of course I did! That's why I included it in the article. But I did the same in another article, and it was removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if two accredited historians speculate about it, the theory is not fringe. I think that it's an unsubstantiated speculation that cast some small shadow on the mainstream conclusion, and this is what the current version of the article reflects. This speculation comes from a credible source, and I do not believe that there is sufficient basis to delete it entirely.

However, I think we already moved beyond GA criteria. As far as I'm concerned, I think that the article certifies the criteria. Thank you for your efforts! 凰兰时罗 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]