Talk:Susan B. Anthony/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Unlimitedlead (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 June 2023 (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 non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

After this period, Anthony focused her energy on abolitionist and women's rights activities.
Suffrage, however, did not become the main focus of her work for several more years.
Anthony continued to be heavily involved in anti-slavery work at the same time.
Anthony and Stanton continued to work for the inclusion of suffrage for both African Americans and women.
Anthony's other suffrage work included organizing national conventions, lobbying Congress and state legislatures, and participating in a seemingly endless series of state suffrage campaigns.
The NWSA decided to pursue the far more difficult strategy of campaigning for a constitutional amendment to achieve voting rights for women.
...the history evolved into a six-volume work of more than 5700 pages written over a period of 41 years. The first three volumes, which cover the movement up to 1885, were published between 1881 and 1886 and were produced by Stanton, Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage. Anthony handled the production details and the extensive correspondence with contributors. Anthony published Volume 4, which covers the period from 1883 to 1900, in 1902, after Stanton's death, with the help of Ida Husted Harper, Anthony's designated biographer. The last two volumes, which bring the history up to 1920, were completed in 1922 by Harper after Anthony's death.
"Failure is impossible" quickly became a watchword for the women's movement.
She is the author of a 6 volume work History of Woman Suffrage (1881).
A bronze sculpture of a locked ballot box flanked by two pillars marks the place where Anthony voted in 1872 in defiance of laws that prohibited women from voting. Called the 1872 Monument, it was dedicated in August, 2009, on the 89th anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment. Leading away from the 1872 Monument is the Susan B. Anthony Trail, which runs beside the 1872 Café, named for the year of Anthony's vote.
...in Battenville, New York, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
In 2007, the new Frederick Douglass–Susan B. Anthony Memorial Bridge replaced the old Troup–Howell Bridge as the main conduit of expressway traffic through downtown Rochester.

[needs update] tag present.
Suggest adding ALT text to images.
Some captions are alright, but others are quite short and unhelpful- see "Elizabeth Cady Stanton" or "Susan B. Anthony".
The article makes use of an excessive amount of direct quotations, to the point that some paragraphs are just quotes from other people. While this can be useful, an article about such a high-profile historical figure should be able to utilize the decades of authoritative academic analysis on Anthony to be able to discuss her in its own words.
The article, clocking in at over 11,000 words, is seemingly not focused on the subject. The "recommended" length of a Wikipedia article is 10,000 words at most, but since Anthony is such a major historical figure, I am willing to overlook that. However, I believe that the article is not as focused as it could be- more could be said about Anthony's legacy (in terms of suffrage and the government), and less should be said about commemoration (in particular, the Artwork section is unnecessarily lengthy.
The article's sourcing is dubious to me. Some of the citations look alright (and I appreciate the usage of primary sources, although they should be used more sparingly in favor of secondary ones), but others are strange. I see a broadcaster and even Queen Victoria listed as citations. These things to not reassure me about the quality of the sources used in this article.

Thinking again actually, the rate at which primary sources are used in the article alarms me. Many of these individuals cited has personal connections to Anthony in her lifetime, which makes me concerned that the article may be biased. Wikipedia guidelines mandate that secondary/tertiary sources are to be used in favor of primary ones whenever possible, and considering Anthony's fame, there are surely some ones out there that can be used for the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilpen: Apologies, but I am obligated to fail this GA nomination. The issues with the article are too resounding to fix at the GA process, so I suggest a major restructuring and re-sourcing of the article (which may take a few months) before submitting the article to the GA process again. Cheers and good luck, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Unlimitedlead: for the work you put into this. Some of the problems you identify are fairly easy to fix, so I will work on them. The larger problem is the fact that there is only one scholarly biography of Anthony, the one written by Kathleen Barry that is cited numerous times in the article. It is a little old, having been written in 1988, although it was updated somewhat in 2020. I was surprised that no new biography of Anthony was published to help commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth in 2020. Bilpen (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]