Talk:Katharine Lee Bates/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review may take me a day or two to complete. When finished, I'll be claiming it for points in the 2019 Wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I have made several copyedits. Please review them for accuracy and clarity.

"She graduated from Needham High School in 1872, from Newton High School in 1875" - She graduated from high school twice?

Newton High School is a DAB page. I assume she attended the one from Massachusetts?

"prize-winning young adult novel" - What prize did it win? This sounds like WP:PUFFERY.

"Among the latter was Katharine Coman, who would..." This feels out of place here. She's not mentioned again until two sections later. I'll leave it up to you if it should be relocated or just removed.

" the Holy Land" - Jerusalem?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
No concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Katharine Lee Bates: From Sea to Shining Sea is a 374 page book cited 24 times, but none of the citations indicate a page number for the specific claim being used. Several other book references (like To believe in women: What lesbians have done for America--a history, 448 page book) are missing page numbers. I can't find any policy regarding their inclusion or omission, but this makes it hard to verify the claims even if a reader has access to the books.

The birthdate is given in the lead and the inbox, but it is not cited at either place.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Aside from a site that appears to have copied Wikipedia (Upclosed.com), Earwig had low results with the majority caused by attributed quotes or common/unavoidable phrases.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
File:Statue of Katharine Lee Bates.jpg is a very poor quality image. Is one available where the subject isn't almost entirely obscured by shadow?

Would File:Portrait of Katharine Lee Bates, ca. 1880-1890.jpg make a better infobox image? This photograph has an estimated date it was taken. I was unable to locate that information for the current image.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Seven days passed without any editor expressing interest in improving the article in the ways necessary to meet GA standards. Lacking access to the print sources (and the time), I'm not able to enact the improvements myself. If the nominator returns, I would be happy to run a second review. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Argento Surfer: Just a heads up that the nominator, AnaSoc, hasn't edited in a few months, so may be unavailable for this review. I see that Keith Arbour has done quite a bit of work on the article recently, though. Keith, perhaps you'd be willing to respond to Argento Surfer's review? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I'll put the review on hold to see if anyone's interested in the comments I've made so far. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bmclaughlin9 and Anders.Warga: Suppose it wouldn't hurt to ping two other users active on this article in the past who still look to be active, in case one of them wants to jump back in. :) I hate to see a wasted review and an article get so close to GA before falling off. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m not sufficiently interested. Nor do I think the article is as good as the reviewer does. See, for example, the passage in the "America the Beautiful" section that begins "Ponder explains..." How to explain why this graf is wedged in here? And why name Ponder for material that’s not a matter of dispute? Also the fact that Bates' sexuality is a matter of dispute belongs in the summary, but there’s no reason to name Ponder much less the title of her book. Some citations need formatting (see the two New York Times citations) and there’s a bare url following the discussion of an NPR story. Writing: see the use of "destined" to add drama.
- That said, I am going to modify some things that really bug me: detail for the prize won by Rose and Thorn, and a clearer statement about the dedication of Yellow Clover. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, my review of the prose stopped after the "Life and Career" section. I'll resume if there's an interested and knowledgeable editor who can help with some fixes. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]