Talk:Mary Margaret O'Reilly/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I will be performing a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Wehwalt, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review of your article and I find that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few suggestions and comments that should be addressed prior to its passage. Thank you for all your efforts in researching and writing this article, and for all your tremendous contributions to Wikipedia. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede adequately stands alone as a concise overview of O'Reilly's life. The lede defines O'Reilly's accomplishments, establishes context, explains why O'Reilly is notable, and summarizes the most important points of O'Reilly's biography.
The info box template is beautifully formatted, and its contents are cited within the prose, utilizing inline citations.
The image of O'Reilly has been released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here. Its source is the Library of Congress.
In the next-to-last sentence, I would suggest referring to the President as Roosevelt rather than FDR.
The lede's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose below, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Early life and career

While Wikipedia:Inline citation does not provide guidance on the usage of inline citations within the middle of a sentence, I would suggest considering consolidating inline citations at the end of sentences to improve the overall flow. Again, this is merely something to consider and it is not a deal breaker for Good Article status.

It's just when I do that, then if I want to add something later, it's hard to unscramble the egg (yes, I could look through the history but that gets tedious). I've wound up with five references in a row.

"Wind up" strikes me as a bit WP:COLLOQUIAL. I would consider terms like "arrange the affairs of..." or "dissolve." Again this is another suggestion and has no bearing on Good Article passage.
This section is well-written, its contents are adequately sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Mint career (1904–1938)

The image of the Mint medal by Chief Engraver Charles E. Barber is released into the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
I know the sources do not fill in this blank, but one wonders how a 30-something woman in the early 1900s makes such a drastic move from Massachusetts to New Orleans. I'm assuming she relocates to New Orleans first, then is hired by the Mint while already living there.

It's barely possible she was hired to work at the New Orleans Mint (open until 1909) and transferred to the Bureau's Washington office. The Washington office was never large, and as you point out, considerable moves would have been involved, so I'm a bit dubious. I suspect the Times is wrong, but can't prove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be beneficial to some readers to wiki-link numismatists to the article for Numismatics.
I would wiki-link Philadelphia Mint in the first paragraph of the "Assistant director" subsection and would de-link it in the final paragraph of the subsection.
The image of the Nellie Ross mint medal has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
As stated above, I would suggest referring to the President as Roosevelt rather than FDR.

This one is actually somewhat difficult, because of the proximity of Eleanor Roosevelt. That would create an ambiguity.

The image of O'Reilly and C.M. Hester is released into the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for inclusion here.
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. should be rendered as such, and the spelling of his surname should be spelled consistently as "Morgenthau" throughout.
This section is well-written, its contents are adequately sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Retirement and death

I would suggest rewording the sentence "reporters had sought to interview her, to be met with the following statement:" as "reporters had sought to interview her, and were met with the following statement:" or "reporters had sought to interview her, only to be met with the following statement:"
This section is well-written, its contents are adequately sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Thank you for a most thorough review and your kind words. I've done all that you have said (if I haven't mentioned it, I've done it, I hope) except the FDR matter late in the article, due to the problem stated above, for which your suggestions would certainly be welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I continue to enjoy reading your latest articles, and it has been a privilege to have the opportunity to review this one. I've reviewed this article once more and find that you have incorporated a number of the suggestions listed above. As for the FDR reference, you could always use "President Roosevelt" but it is fine as is. Congratulations on a job well done, and it is hereby my pleasure to pass this article to Good Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I am pleased that the articles give you enjoyment.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]