Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Abbott/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [1].

Margaret Abbott

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for FAC because ... we need more woman in sports biographies to be featured, and I think this one meets the criteria.

Imaging winning gold in Olympics, but still no one knows about you. But this is an interesting case, even she didn't know that she won the Olympics! All constructive feedback is more than welcome. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon helped a lot by reviewing the article for GA. @Extraordinary Writ, The Rambling Man, and Gerda Arendt: were kind enough to review the article during the peer review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by Wehwalt

Have you consulted biographies of her husband, who is a well-studied figure (I brought his best-known creation, Mr. Dooley to FA) to see if you can get further information about her? I see the Ellis biography of him on Internet Archive, and it seems to mention Abbott a few times.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note you say The NY Times published a belated obituary. But they did publish an obituary at the time, here, though it was obviously inadequate as mostly discussing her husband and children.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage was reported here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wehwalt! Yes, I did look at various biographies of Mr. Dunne in search for more information about her, but found nothing more than trivial mentions about their marriage. And yes, the Ellis biography, which has some information is already used as a source; see this. I have looked through the internet archive, google books, JSTOR, Wikipedia library, Google scholar, Chicago Tribune at Newspaper.com, and other places but it appears that we don't know much about her. This is mostly because most people didn't knew about her until Paula Welch publisher her research [2] in 1982. As for the NYT archive newspapers, I can't access them. Mail me if you can, but I suspect that the obituary and the marriage report won't add anything substantial other than what we already know. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can access The New York Times (plus the Washington Post and lots of other papers) through ProQuest in the Wikipedia Library—for the two articles Wehwalt mentions, try this link and this link. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did check out those links, but I think they don't have much to add in the article. Feel free to add more comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wehwalt, do you have any more comments. Regards, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a drive-by. The name sounded familiar. I'm not sure whether I'll have time for a full review right now, I'm busy with other stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Therapyisgood

Not a source review by any means but there is a mix of title and other casing in the "Online references" part of the page. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Therapyisgood, thanks for the comment. I have tried to fix the issue and it should be consistent now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi @Therapyisgood, do you have any more comments? Regards, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

File:Margaret-abbott-gold-medal-1900-golf.jpg tag insufficient since source country and publication date unknown. I would imagine the source country is France and it could potentially be copyrighted there. (t · c) buidhe 05:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: I'm sorry but I am having a hard time understanding the issue. Per the copyright tag, "it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1902." It is indeed created before 1902 (event took place in 1900), and an 'anonymous work' (we don't know the author). By that reasoning, it meets the criteria for being in the PD in US. Source country should be France (for creation of the work). I am unaware of French copyright laws, but Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France says: "if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, [the normal duration of copyright] is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves). This applies only if publication occurs within 70 years of creation". I see no evidence whether it was published by 1972, so should be in the PD there as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no evidence that it wasn't published before 1972. We don't know when it was first published. Generally you need more than one source published long after the fact that does not provide author information in order to conclude the photographer is actually unknown. If it was published in France after 1927 and before 1972 it is still likely copyrighted in the US because of URAA and could still be copyrighted in France as well. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks! I have now swapped it with another image. Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No issues, pass (t · c) buidhe 18:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dugan Murphy

I'll add some comments here in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a 1897" sounds to me like it should be "an 1897".
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the Washington Park" – "the" doesn't seem necessary.
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article says Abbott "had a two handicap". Is that how it is usually phrased in articles about golf? I would be tempted to write it as "a handicap of two", but I don't know much about golf.
- That is how it is usually written, see this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does "modern Olympics" mean?
- To differentiate it from Ancient Olympic Games, which took place as back as 776 BC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"9 holes" – per MOS:NUMERAL, it should be "nine holes".
- But per that same guideline, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". Here, we have three numerical values in a sentence, and they need to be consistent whether spelled or in figures. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "in contrast" doesn't seem necessary to me.
- Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in connection to the Paris Exhibition." the period should be outside the quotation unless the period is part of the quotation.
- Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"instead of as an Olympic event" doesn't make sense given the wording of the first part of the sentence. Maybe change to "instead of being referred to as an Olympic event".
- Fixed; much better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Combining three different sources in citation 20 makes it unclear which of the three provided the quote in that sentence. Same with citation 29.
- Re Citation#20, all the three sources have that quotation! Same with Citation#29, both the sources have that quotation. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in an attempt to gain information" doesn't seem like a necessary part of that sentence.
- Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"that we have today ... She came back." MOS:ELLIPSIS suggests that there should be a fourth period in that ellipsis, but doesn't seem to demand it. A fourth period seems necessary to me since "She" starts a new sentence.
- Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "prize" is a better word than "reward" here.
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire first paragraph of the body has only one citation, which combines 4 different sources. Can you be more specific in citing individual sentences in that paragraph? Same thing for the first 6 sentences of the body's second paragraph.
- Well, the minimum requirement for citations in FAC is 1 reference per paragraph. The reason I have merged these 4 references is because the information is really scattered among different sources, and providing separate inline citations would cause a repetition of various references, in my opinion, affecting the flow of readability. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 4: Abbott 1900 is lacking a page number. Furthermore, this seems like a primary source to me. What does it say that the secondary sources don't say?
- Nothing more than the full title of the travel guide she wrote, that is why no page number. I think we are allowed to use primary sources for that purpose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article, but I'm willing to believe it is sufficiently comprehensive given how little scholarship there is on the topic and how limited Abbott's fame seems to be. Having said that, there seems to be a reasonably comprehensive collection or sources in the works cited section. Thank you for working to improve the article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Dugan! The comments were much helpful. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rad. I'm happy with the changes made and your responses to my comments. I support this nomination. If you have time to do some reading and commenting yourself, this FAC for an article I wrote is in dire need of comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, will try to take a look! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause

In acknowledgment of many of the positive statements above in this FAC, this is a short article about a significant accomplishment by a talented woman athlete. After a top to bottom read through, the article basically seems to cover the revived journalistic accounts of her win comprehensively, and this nomination should be supported. Optionally, I would add that it might be nice to elaborate further on the odd frame of mind that she did not realize that she had won at the Olympics even well after the event had been completed. That's optional however and the article is supported. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dwaipayan

Short, sweet, easy-to-read, and very interesting. Meets FA criteria, in my opinion. --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon

I reviewed this at GA. The prose looks even better now. The only little thing I could find was:

Abbott never realized that she participated and became the first American woman to win an Olympic event. --> should there not be an "in" after participated? Or perhaps a little rephrasing.

Regardless, this meets the criteria. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made the sole change! Thanks for both your reviews! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

What makes Atlas Obscura a high-quality reliable source?
- It is an online American website described to be reliable in various other high quality reliable sources, including 'The New York Times'. Moreover, its use in this article is limited to non-controversial historical facts, and not any evaluative claims. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Lester source appears to be a republication - is it authorized?
- I'm not sure, but it is published on the site of Women Golfers' Museum. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay - is this likely to be a linkvio issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nikkimaria: I just changed the source to a better one by University of Florida. All good? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor link is dead
- Added archived link. The author is Ph.D, so it should be fine to use. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Access dates aren't needed for GBooks links
- Fine, fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Costa: these appear to be editors rather than authors
- Fine, fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica ref appears to be an online-only feature - why is it in the Print section?
- Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Golf Illustrated: is there a specific article being referenced? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, specified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Nikkimaria, for the review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, is this GTG?

Nikkimaria: Apologies if this is again, but you may not have received the ping as Gog forgot to sign. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Courtesy ping. - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators

@FAC coordinators: - (1) Can I nominate another article? (2) How is this one going? Thanks! - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. You may. 2. Just waiting on Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Gog! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.