Jump to content

Talk:Jennie Scott Griffiths

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
PASSED
All comments addressed, article meets GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2022 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jennie Scott Griffiths/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria checklist

[edit]

I'll be taking up this review, starting off with a checklist of the good article criteria, followed by a section-by-section breakdown of the article.

  1. Well written  Yes The article is very well-written and easily understood.
  2. Verifiable with no original research  Yes Every statement is referenced and are easily verified, as almost all of the cited sources contain links. The sources are reliable, coming either from journal articles, encyclopedias, history books or newspaper articles from the time (the last of which is curious, which I'll get into later). A copyvio check using earwig's tool threw up no examples of copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage  Yes Covers the full biography from cradle to grave, largely without going off-topic.
  4. Neutral  Yes The article is written in a well-balanced manner.
  5. Stable  Yes Since its creation and expansion a month ago, the only edits made have been uncontroversial copy edits.
  6. Illustrated  Yes It has an image in the infobox. It could do with one or two in the body, but that's unimportant.

On first pass, it seems like this will only need some minor edits and some tightening up of the sourcing for verification purposes. Nice work SusunW! --Grnrchst (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grnrchst happy to make your acquaintance and looking forward to your suggestions for improving the article. Please ping me when you are finished reviewing it, as while I have marked it on my watchlist, I sometimes fail to see the notifications there. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: Done! Pleasure to be working on this with you. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

[edit]
  • The detail about her parents' former marriages and children from those manages would probably fit better as an explanatory footnote, rather than being in the body of the text, as the information about this is largely superfluous and doesn't have any baring on the rest of the biography.
  • I'm assuming this "Randolph" is her father? This is unclear, as her father is previously named as "Stephen Randolph".
  • Do the sources (Clarke 2016, p. 1; The Panola Watchman 1909, p. 7) go into any further detail about her being a child prodigy and her age when she gave these speeches? I only ask because on its face, that she was only two-years old when she started giving speeches is difficult to believe.
  • Patricia Clarke (historian) is an expert on 19th century women and she wrote "her father launching her at the age of two into the role of 'Child Wonder'. Newspaper cuttings kept in scrapbooks and loose folders now in the National Library of Australia attest to her prominence as a child prodigy". I see no reason to doubt her word that clippings substantiate that. SusunW (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanatory footnote about her claims of studying law at Austin is quite long. Considering it mostly amounts to "She claimed X, but there are no records of this being true", I recommend cutting down on this for the sake of concision.
  • We are not allowed to draw conclusions or conduct original research. I can only lay out the facts cited by others, which I have done, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions, as you did. Don't really see how leaving out the details helps the reader do that. SusunW (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor grammar: Recommand changing "had a job offer" to "received a job offer".
  • If there isn't much more information about the Hagey Institute, I suggest removing the red link for now.
  • Recommend standardizing the name of "her half-brother Tom Cowart" to either "Thomas" or "Tom", for the sake of consistency.

--Grnrchst (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji (1897–1912)

[edit]
  • Is "the group" supposed to be Jennie and her half-brother's family? If so, consider moving the section from "In 1893 [...]" onwards into the "Career" section.
  • Consider either moving the whole section about nationality laws to an explanatory footnote or cutting down on it for the sake of concision. Keep the focus on Griffiths.
  • I kind of disagree, and if you want we can discuss it, but I probably won't change my mind . Her loss of nationality is a loss of her identity and is needed for context, IMO. Part of her identity was "stolen" by government policies that without asking her assumed she was no longer an American and had an allegiance to Britain. Laurie Fransman, an expert on British nationality says these laws created legal fictions for women. Most people are not even aware that this was a global situation and left many women stateless because a loss their nationality in country A without provision in country B's for her to gain their nationality left her in limbo. You will note that later, she couldn't even just retrieve her nationality when they moved back to the US, but had naturalize, as if she was a foreigner. It is an extremely important facet of women's history that I think should not continue to be buried. SusunW (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's no further information on him, then remove the redlink for "George Littleton Griffiths", as right now it's curious that her father-in-law gets a redlink but her husband himself doesn't.
  • Notability is not inherited. Her father-in-law established the "main regional newspaper" in the Pacific (p. 3) and expanded into Samoa, while her husband could not even support the family and is not to my mind notable in any way except for his ties to his dad and his wife. Lots of sourcing on the f-i-l: [6],[7],[8]
  • "When her father-in-law George Littleton Griffiths died in 1908, Arthur inherited the businesses." Consider changing the "her" to "Nellie", as this sentence is internally confusing.
  • Unclear what "a social reporting and the news" means in context, consider re-writing for clarity.

--Grnrchst (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think I am done with this section, but advise me if we need to discuss further. SusunW (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye this is all good, thanks! -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia (1913–1920)

[edit]
  • Recommend restructuring this sentence: "Griffiths went to work three months after having given birth to her last child in 1913 at the Australian Woman's Weekly," as "Three months after having given birth to her last child in 1913, Griffiths went to work at the Australian Woman's Weekly,"
  • What does "household hints" mean?
  • Obviously I am much older than you, LOL. For the long period of time when women were limited to activity in their homes, many newspapers published hacks and diy tips for doing domestic chores and minor repairs. These were known as household hints columns. Some of the most well known were Hints from Heloise and Godey's Lady's Book of Household Hints.[9] Not really sure what else they could be called, as that is the common name for them.[10],[11] (And no, we don't have an article on them and I was shocked just now to see the state of the article on Heloise Bowles Cruse and her daughter Heloise (columnist).) SusunW (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of clarity, I suggest canging "which emerged in women's groups in 1916 and 1917," to "which emerged in women's groups following the Australian entry into World War I," or something similar.
  • Aim for closer consistency in how the newspapers are listed in the second sentence of the final paragraph are listed. For example, it says "Brisbane's Daily Standard" but then "the British paper, Social Democrat" and "Industrial Worker from Chicago".

--Grnrchst (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, think I'm done with this section too, but let me know if there are still issues. SusunW (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing: "the Britain's" should just be "Britain's". Otherwise, all good. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States (1920–1951)

[edit]

No notes. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

[edit]

No notes. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • Priority: The inline citations for Clarke 2016 list the page number range as between 1 and 13. But in the bibliography, the citation lists the page range as between 31 and 51. Please fix this.
  • Not really sure how to fix it, as the actual journal article is not available on line. The viewable article from academia.edu only has 15 pages, so its presentation doesn't line up with the journal copy. I've added "(Cited page numbers refer to on-line version)" to the ref. If that works, then  Done SusunW (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend bundling some inline citations into an Sfnm format, as there are frequent cases of two or three footnote markers in one go.
  • Typically (at least in featured articles I have done), this is only required for more than 3 citations. Since none of the references exceed 3, I am unsure why this is an issue. SusunW (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the extra space between "Acton" and the comma for Irving 2002.
  • Consider adding more details to the Irving 2002 citations. For example, the volume of the Australian Dictionary of Biography used (16), the ISBN and OCLC numbers, and (if possible) the page numbers in the physical edition.
  • This seems to be in direct conflict with the instructions above for Clarke. I don't have access to the printed book or a copy of same, which is why I cited it as a website and not the book. I've cited it according to this, but I have no idea upon what page it might appear.  Done SusunW (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article makes copious use of newspaper articles from the time when Griffiths was alive, but the newspapers tend to be an assortment of local papers that may not be as easy to access offline. Consider adding ISSN and OCLC numbers wherever possible, for the sake of making verification as accessible as possible.
  • IMO, that is overkill. I always list ISSN and ISBN or OCLC numbers for books and journal articles, but never for newspapers, and cannot honestly say I have ever seen that done in decades of writing articles. In fact, our guidelines Wikipedia:Citing sources only list book and journal citation of those identifiers and "optional" and make no mention for newspapers. I live in Mexico, so trust me when I say I totally understand difficulties in accessing on-line sourcing. If someone is trying to verify this on-line article every single source except Fransman's book has a on-line link and I have saved each of them in archive.org because often websites may be blocked to countries but one can access them in the "Wayback" form. If they are trying to verify it offline, how would they even have access? but regardless, knowing the name and date of the paper is sufficient in most instances per my anecdotal experience and decades of research. SusunW (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Grnrchst (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'm done with this section too, but let me know. SusunW (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye all good, thanks. -- Grnrchst (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]
  • The infobox lists her nationality as "American, British, American", with little extra detail, which can be confusing without reading the rest of the article. Consider adding dates.
  • Truthfully, my initial reaction is despair. Reading is a lost art. I cannot imagine why anyone would expect to garner any meaningful understanding from a list of bullet points. I've added dates, but am not happy to encourage "skimming for highlights behavior" which eliminates the need to think and evaluate context. SusunW (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider expanding with information about what she is known for, her political affiliations, employment history, spouse, parents, etc.
  • Same comment as above. If one cannot be bothered to even read the lede, which is an abstract of the text, are they really interested in learning anything? *sigh* I've added some info, but I truly do not see why we would list her non-notable husband, children, siblings, or parents, jobs, etc. in an infobox. SusunW (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Grnrchst (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Grnrchst Thank you so much for your thorough review. I honestly appreciate your taking the time to help with improving it. I'm willing to discuss anything you still may think needs adjusting/changing/rewriting, just ping me. SusunW (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

[edit]

Well I'm satisfied with this review. The article was already in a solid place and my issues raised have either been resolved, addressed or answered sufficiently. This was a very enjoyable and informative process for me, I feel like I've learnt a lot from SusunW in only this short time. I'll go ahead and close this review as passed. @SusunW: Thanks once again for all of this and apologies if I got a bit too nitpicky with some of these issues. Congrats on getting another Good Article onto your impressive GA list. :D --Grnrchst (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One should never apologize for improving an article. I truly cannot express enough how important I think the collaborative process is. I genuinely appreciate your time to review it. SusunW (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2022 (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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by SusunW (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 23:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - maybe?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Well, since the DYK the article has already passed a GA review, which significantly simplifies my work as a reviewer. Technically the Headbomb script flags a few sources (familysearch.org) as unreliable, but I find the article information sourced to them (name of her parents etc.) as not exactly vital to the article, and the info is sometimes even duplicated in a reliable source. So even if there is the possibility of some slight error there, it would not endanger the article accuracy in any significant way.

I rather have some issue with the hooks: ALT0 is pretty boring. A lot of people were likely born in log cabins, but we need to know why we should read about this particular woman! Maybe amend it with some info about her achievements, so that it becomes the "from humble origins" story the hook likely intended to tell. ALT1 is better, but I think it would still benefit from some short mention of her occupation. However, if you'd rather keep it as-is, I would approve ALT1, but not ALT0. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "the Headbomb script flags a few sources as unreliable" in error. Primary sources are not necessarily unreliable. There is a vast difference in promotional materials, non-curated publishings, or material written by the subject and, as in this case, documents created by government entities to verify an event. A government employee is not likely to have fabricated official legal records, although they might contain errors (just like secondary sources do). Whenever one is writing an article, one must do due diligence to ensure that the source is speaking of the subject and not some other person with the same name. In this case, secondary sourcing confirms places and some names and each WP:primary source used meets our guidelines for limited use, was created by a government entity, and anyone with access can verify that they confirm the people listed. Limited use to confirm details but not notability is acceptable per our guidelines. IMO, for the ALT1 hook, her occupation doesn't create added interest and may have the opposite effect. Leaving it out makes one read the article to see why her papers would be in Australia. Adding it, the reader is likely to think, she was simply another international journalist, but I've added it per your request. SusunW (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to thank you, @Onegreatjoke and LordPeterII: for recently nominating articles I have worked on for DYK. I find the process somewhat daunting and have really missed Yoninah's hand in promoting articles for me. I truly appreciate that you took the time to nominate them and work to get them on the front page. SusunW (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: You are right, the sources are likely not unreliable. But I didn't really meant to imply that there was an issue; it just always pops out to me visually when something is marked in red by the script. And to be fair to Headbomb, he has a big disclaimer up that explains that the bot can't "think", and even if something is flagged, an editor has to check whether or not something needs to be done.
As for the hooks, I actually agree with you about ALT1, and have gone ahead and removed the occupation from it. It reads more "hooky" without. Unless you or @Onegreatjoke have any ideas for ALT0, which by comparison is rather weak, I would simply strike that one and approve ALT1. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LordPeterII I get it, and Headbomb does really good work, but I wish that it showed as yellow instead of red, because there are a lot of editors who see red, assume bad, and start deleting stuff. To my mind, FamilySearch is no different than Google books. You have to use your brain , was it published?, is it independent?, is it promotional?, etc. I thought about hook 0, but wanted to give Onegreatjoke time to respond. It could be more hooky to say that journalist Jennie Scott Griffiths, who wrote for the Fiji Times, was born in a log cabin in Texas or that child prodigy Jennie Scott Griffiths was born in a log cabin, or that Jennie Scott Griffiths, who was born in a log cabin in Texas, protested the draft/conscription for WWI in Australia, etc. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII: @SusunW: I know I am the nominator for this but what is the status of this review? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: Well, I was (too implicitly maybe) asking you about ALT0, since it's currently boring, but has potential if amended. Or if you don't want to amend it, I'll strike it and approve ALT1. Just waiting for your input on the hooks, the article is fine. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII: I think you should just strike ALT0 honestly. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, then approving ALT1. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jennie_Scott_Griffiths&oldid=1207774910"