Talk:Lotta Dempsey/GA1

GA Review

Passed. 123Writer ^talk 16:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 17:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to take this one. Good luck!

1TWO3Writer Thanks for looking at her. I think I have answered all of your queries. I disagree with you on the autobiography, but have reworked it anyway following your advice. Please ping me, if we need to have more discussion. I appreciate your work to improve the article. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2023 (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.	See below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See below.
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.	Consistent use of sfn citation template. Bibliography contains all necessary info for each source.
	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).	All spot-checks OK.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Every paragraph has multiple in-line citations.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio issues. Quotes are properly attributed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See below.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Don't think there's anything un-neutral: sources clearly consider her an influential feminist journalist.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit not my own from 8 days ago.
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.	All photos are valid public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All photos follow captioning guidelines and are relevant to their sections.
	7. Overall assessment.

Discussion

1a

She was also proud of gaining an interview with the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, who rarely spoke with the press, and of being the first Canadian woman to discuss his study with him. I suggest: She was the first Canadian woman to interview the sexologist Alfred Kinsey, who rarely spoke with the press. I don't think her being proud needs to be mentioned, but if you disagree, mention who claims she was proud (Mary Louise Adams) so it's properly attributed.

done SusunW (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1b

I would suggest splitting the lead into three paragraphs: bio intro and early career, later career and death, and awards.

I do not know if ...and from a young age wanted to be a reporter. Her father insisted she should become a teacher, but after two months of teaching, Dempsey resigned... is necessary in the lead.

Done SusunW (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2b

Spot-check: 1, 17, 23, 35, 40, 59, 66, 69

3b

The book told her life story with her typical humour, relaying missteps she had made, like stepping off a boat and landing in the water rather on land, crashing into Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh when she attempted a curtsy, and exiting from her bathroom in a hotel inadvertently into the corridor without her key or clothes. I don't think all of those anecdotes are exactly relevant. Perhaps could be replaced with how the book was critically received?

Except that those are from a review and are the most often reported anecdotes about her mishaps, so I think probably signature events. I've removed them, but I think one gets a lot less of a sense of who she was with them gone. I've scoured newspapers and come up with 3 more reviews, all of which give anecdotes, but I've left them out and given a brief summary of all 3. It isn't likely to have "critical reviews", as it's not an academic work, and reviews were written by fellow journalists. By definition an autobiography tells one's own version of their life, how is a reviewer going to analyze a subjective view objectively? Perhaps you like it better now? SusunW (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. And all your other edits. Well done! 123Writer ^talk 16:19, 31 August 2023 (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.