Talk:Mildred Mottahedeh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 01:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this article in the coming days. When responding, please ping me so that I know to check this page. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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:

Hi, thanks for nominating this article for GAN. There are only a couple of concerns for this article before I can pass this. Let me know when they are complete.

I am really skeptical of reference 1, the New York Times obituary. [1]. I looked in the TimesMachine and an author is not listed, even though some other obituaries have the author listed. The language used in the obituary is also overly flowery and talks more about the family. This makes me think this is an obituary written by someone close to Mottahedeh without editorial oversight by NYT. This reference is used to support some outstanding claims, like "The company saw great success, becoming one of the "most prestigious firms in the reproduction of porcelain"" or "Upon her death, The New York Times described it as "one of the world's finest private collections"" Where possible, this citation should be removed (especially when you already have 2 or 3 sources supporting a fact) or replaced.

Cut the quotes to the obit, but I don't see a problem with using it for basic biographical details-- even if it is written by someone close to here, it's likely to be accurate particularly when considering 1) it is the NYT 2) we cannot say for sure who wrote it and 3) the author, whoever they were, is not likely to get the biographical details wrong whether they are a staff writer or relative. Point taken about using it for reputation-al stuff. I was able to cut the number of uses down noticably, what do you think?Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Its work was used in three presidential inaugurations." You had great detail about Bush's inauguration, but what about the other two?

Unfortunately, that's all the detail that I found on the topic-- I think the detail about Bush was available because Barbara had such a high opinion of her Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph feels very disorganized, both within the paragraph and in the entire Careers section. This is because it breaks with the timeline presented in the rest of the section and jumps around a lot. For example, you talk about H. W. Bush, then Reagan, then Hoover. I suggest dispersing this information within the rest of the Careers section so it doesn't feel like an outlier or out of place.

I split the details about Reagan and Hoover and moved the rest of the paragraph to be approximately chronological-- how does it look now?

"In 1982, The Christian Science Monitor described Mottahedeh as "one of the foremost international authorities on Chinese export porcelain"" This needs a citation after the quote, even if it is later in the paragraph.

Done Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have her death date listed twice in the Personal life section.

Fixed Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References were spot-checked (especially if they used quotes) and seem fine. Images are OK.

Great job with the article. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thanks for the review! All points addressed, let me know what you think. Happy to discuss any further, particularly the NYT reference if you aren't satisfied. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, The new york times obituary is now referenced just three times, to establish what are, to me, reasonable things for her obituary to establish, such as her date and place of death, the nature of her collection, and the years she was president of the company. Let me know what you think. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie891 I agree with you that we can still use the obituary as a source, I was just concerned that it was being used for extraordinary claims. I like the edits you have completed concerning the source.

My concern now is the sentence, "Her son, Roy P. Mottahedeh,[22] is a historian of the medieval Near East and a recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship.[39]" I would support taking it out of the article as offtopic (it doesn't really fit anywhere as there isn't a personal life section) or moving it to the "Early life" section after talking about her marriage. I would combine the sentence about her death date with the last sentence in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Z1720, what do you think of my most recent revision? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I am giving this GAN a pass. Congratulations! I will update the article in the next few minutes (I'm at work so it might get delayed). Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]