Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald

[edit]
(
)

Created by Antiqueight (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC).

  • New, long enough, within policy, QPQ not required, Earwig detects no copyvios. Hook relies on citation not available online, so I'm not able to verify. It would be helpful to use the quote parameter in the citation to show the exact text from the hard copy source. This article and the hook are both interesting, so it just needs a bit more information to meet the verifiable citation requirement. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the article to quote from now. I'll have to find another source. May take a few days. ☕ Antiqueight haver 16:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I found the same information quoting the same source in other Wikipedia articles — see James Macmahon, Garret FitzGerald, and Liam Tobin. Unfortunately, you seem to have transplanted some sentences or phrases from these articles to the article Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald. At the least, the copied text represents WP:CIRCULAR, and at the worst, "public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source" — see WP:PLAG. You've shown you can paraphrase sources well in the rest of the article, so my advice would be to use that skill to re-work the phrasing on the copied sentences. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to work on paraphrases a bit more. I'm replying here instead of my talk page in the interest of keeping the discussion about the article in one place.
Here's a helpful page: copying from one Wikipedia article to another. In looking more closely at the other WP articles, though, you have not copied exactly, but the structure of the sentences is too close. If anything, each of the other articles has more of a copying without attribution problem, it appears to me! Here are the text comparisons:
from Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald article:
"He appointed her on account of her dedication to her work at the time in the GPO, and her apparent lack of interest in politics. However, McConnell Fitzgerald was a cousin of Joe McGrath and wife of a republican politician. So while her work involved her decoding confidential messages sent from London, she actually was passing any relevant information to either Liam Tobin, Joe McGrath, or Desmond Fitzgerald.[6]"
Ref [6]: Fitzgerald, Garret, The light of other days. Irish Times 12 September 1997
from James Macmahon article:
"Macmahon appointed GPO worker Mabel McConnell on account of her dedication and her lack of interest in politics. However McConnell was a cousin ofJoe McGrath and each day between 2:30 and 3:30 she would pass any information acquired to either McGrath, Liam Tobin or Desmond FitzGerald. [1]”
Ref [1] Fitzgerald, Garret, The light of other days. Irish Times 12 September 1997
from Garret Fitzgerald article:
"His mother Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald had worked for Under-Secretary for Ireland James Macmahon, decoding messages sent from London. Each day between 2:30 and 3:30 she would pass any information acquired to either Joe McGrath, Liam Tobin or Garret's father, Desmond.[5]"
[5] Fitzgerald, Garret, The light of other days. The Irish Times 12 September 1997
from Liam Tobin article:
"Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald worked for Under-Secretary for Ireland James Macmahon, decoding messages sent from London. Each day between 2:30 and 3:30 she would pass any information acquired to either Tobin,Joe McGrath, or Desmond Fitzgerald.[1]”
[1] Fitzgerald, Garret, The light of other days. Irish Times 12 September 1997
It's probably not coincidence that each citation suffers from the same small formatting error, the lack of a period at the end of the reference. Not sure what to do about the other texts, which are clearly lifted one from another? Actually, I tracked down the entry of the information about Mabel McConnell FitzGerald in the other three articles to a single contributor, who made all three additions within minutes on April 8, 2012. Shortly therreafter, he stopped contributing to Wikipedia. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about the other articles but I've rechecked Mabel's article and adjusted so there is no copyvio at all. As for the reference I haven't got it now. I did have it on an online source but I can't find it now (of course)and the references to it I can find online only reference it obliquely and are not what would usually be considered RS. I will have to find better but I may add them as supporting evidence anyway. ☕ Antiqueight haver 20:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's the article online: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/the-light-of-other-days-1.105606
Was Mabel also known as Nancy O'brien? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think the ref I originally saw stopped before the name was mentioned. The other references suggest this is true but I can't prove it and to be honest I'm beginning to doubt it - but the FULL version of the link you have there shows that this citation at least does not prove the hook to be true. I'm going to remove it from all the articles until such time as a better verification is found or someone can prove it is not true. (I know I saw it quoted somewhere else but I can't find it - and for all I know, I dreamt it!) ☕ Antiqueight haver 00:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, noooo! I was thinking maybe she used an alias to be able to work undercover? Clearly, Garrett FitzGerald was referring to his mother, but I, too, wish that Mabel McConnell Fitzgerald was more clearly mentioned in the article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
That's just it - I think he was talking about someone else's book that that person's mother was the spy...see, it isn't clear at all! I have added a hook - ALT1 - I'm not sure if that's permitted here. But - perhaps? ☕ Antiqueight haver 01:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, you're right. I misread the "author's mother" as the author of the review's mother (Garret's mother Mabel) rather than the mother of the author of the book being reviewed. Just goes to show how preconceived notions can color our perceptions of what we read. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Outdent forALT1 ☕ Antiqueight haver 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is possible to submit alternates after the original nomination, but I'm new enough to DYK to hope to be enlightened by more experienced editors if that is not the case. At any rate, ALT1 is close to the 200-character limit, and not so interesting in my opinion. Maybe tightening the text and making it into a single sentence would help. A second small issue is that there is not a reference that presents both pieces of the hook; that is, 1) that she eloped and 2) that she was married to a Minister of Defence and the mother of an Irish Prime Minister. I found the book Vivid Faces at my local public library, and since it's over 400 pages, including page references in the article would be helpful. Her elopement with Desmond is described on p.124, and her summary biography on p. 404 references her giving birth to "future Taoiseach Garrett" [sic]. You can add page reference for page 124 to a citation using the template {{Rp|124}}, which produces a superscripted colon and page number, and likewise for a reference to page 404, use {{Rp|404}} after the citation to the book.
I also found an amusing anecdote in another source related to her disagreement with Desmond over the Treaty: "Mabel's sympathies, however, were with the Republicans. This was a painful conflict (their 8-year-old son talked of dinner tables at which the children asked their father to "pass the salt, traitor!")." However, I cannot judge the reliability of the source, which is "College Green House History" at http://freespace.virgin.net/hearth.nireland/Coll%20Gr%20McConnell.html. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I liked the Alt Hook when I took a look at it earlier. Is there any prohibition against having a hook which has at its source multiple references? As for the sources, using the {{Sfn}} template is super easy and useful when the source has a ton of pages. You can see how to use it, Antiqueight on SusunW's pages on some of my newer ones. I learned by watching Susun. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
For the sfn citations, I use it on some pages and not others - sometimes I can't get the google preview to tell what the page number is..I'll take a look Megalibrarygirl and see what I did with this article. ☕ Antiqueight haver 23:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I hate when there aren't page numbers on e-sources. It's frustrating. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
So I checked - the links in the references to books are to ones with previews but the Vivid faces one has no numbers. So you can search for the term (Mabel) online and get all the references for all the citations whether on web pages or in the book but for at least one of the books I can't reference the page directly. Also a couple of commenters on my articles weren't fond of the Harvard citation style... ☕ Antiqueight haver 00:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to some assistance page numbers for the article have been added. ☕ Antiqueight haver 11:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
ALT1 hook at 192 characters, interesting, article meets newness criteria, long enough, neutral, no plagiarism, all within policy, QPQ not required, Earwig detects no copyvios. Good to go! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Returned from prep. ALT1 does not qualify as a hook because it is (A) Two sentences, and (B) Explanatory, rather than hooky. Please suggest a different hook. Also keep in mind that notability is dependent on the subject, not who she's related to. Yoninah (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • BTW this needs a better review. One paragraph (I tagged it) lacks any cites, per DYK rules. The shortened footnotes are also not done properly; they should be linked thusly: {{sfn|Author surname|year of publication|page number}}. Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, ALT2 reduces the hook to one sentence, but still highlights her relationship with her husband and son, rather than the notable elements of her biography. Her pregnancy is not so interesting in this century. I find her relationship with Shaw to be interesting, that she was more radical than Desmond is interesting, that she only converted to Catholicism much later in life is interesting, that she orchestrated Desmond's election in 1918 with a catchy slogan — any one of these elements could be the subject of a hook that highlights her notability rather than her pregnancy before marriage and her relationships with the notable men in her life. -- Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to look next week - this weekend IS Easter 2016 so there is something of a commemoration/celebration taking place. ☕ Antiqueight haver 22:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to a family funeral all this got delayed. Thank you for your patience. Also thanks to SusunW who went through the article and the comments here and fixed issues etc. I will be adding her name to the template if that is ok with SusunW.: I prefer not to lose Mabel's name in the hook so I'd rather not use ALT2. I like ALT3 also. In ALT4, if you feel it's too long, I suggest removing temporary or and his wife?

☕ Antiqueight haver 23:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Antiqueight that's very nice of you, but you don't have to give me credit for gnoming :) happy to help. You should probably ping @Yoninah and Grand'mere Eugene: to verify the hook and corrections, though! SusunW (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Oki. Wasn't sure how to...but sincere thanks SusunW. Meanwhile - good point - totally forgot to ping people. Yoninah and Grand'mere Eugene and Cwmhiraeth as well as Megalibrarygirl were all interested parties. ☕ Antiqueight haver 22:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Grand'mere Eugene that a hook should highlight her notability rather than scandals and relationships with notable men in her life. I've struck the alts that applies to. ALT3 is supported by its current refs, but seems rather lacklustre to me. Two people rarely believe something with equal strength: what is interesting is why, or how that affects things. ALT4 says something about her as an actor in the relationship & her politics, but looking at the article and the sources, I note that they use "Irish separatism" rather than "Irish nationalism", so I'm going to strike that one too and propose a variant. I'm shortening it as well, since I think it makes it more punchy. Just to check: does the article still need a full review, or just confirmation of hooks? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe Yoninah called for a full review because as a new reviewer I had missed checking for a minimum of one citation per paragraph, and now in addition proposed hooks ALT 5 and ALT 6 also need to be verified. I have a few observations about the current referencing that may help move this nomination along:

1. While the minimal standard of one citation per paragraph has been met, the referencing in general seems somewhat thin. For example, the first Background paragraph has a citation that supports the last sentence, but not the first 5 sentences. Further, those sentences mirror a paragraph from the WP article on Desmond Fitzgerald, which is also devoid of a reference.

2. The Bibliography currently references the 2014 edition of Foster's Vivid Faces, which is not currently available with a preview on Google Books. The 2015 edition is available with limited previews, and would be a more helpful citation to verify the article content. I have verified most of the citations from this source, but the pagination is different. For example, info related to citation 1 appears on page 47 of the 2015 edition rather than page 141, and citation 15 does not appear on page xxvi, which does not exist in the 2015 edition. I did find reference to McConnell's later views on adult suffrage on page 323 of the 2015 edition of Foster:

I have changed my own views greatly since youth. About adult suffrage, for instance. I find the masses always wrong, they seem to stand for the worst in man. Certainly not for integrity, which I put first as the essential virtue in private and public life. Also I am convinced that education is necessary to the forming of views that are worthwhile at all, and I don’t believe that the majority of people can take education. If poverty and dirt and disease could be abolished, and I hope they may be, the multitude would want more dog racing, more drink, more pictures, more tabloid views from the cheap press . . . Adult suffrage seems to have led only to the supremacy of the people without standards and values and of the half-baked educationally. Government and all control will soon be in the hands of the uneducated or the semi-educated . . . They already dominate everything here and you seem to be heading for the same situation in England. And aren’t they complacent! I don’t believe that things are any better in Russia either; the complacency is there all right.

Citation 7 refers to page 38, but in the 2015 edition there is no mention of either Mabel or separatism on page 38. That citation is also part of the support for ALT5, but it appears to me that text from Foster only supports that Mabel had a lifelong correspondence with Shaw. So I think the choices are either to use the 2015 edition and re-locate the pages on which the content is supported, or just assume good faith that the 2014 pagination is different from the 2015 edition.

3. Of the two remaining hooks, there may be a problem with ALT6, because the slogan was apparently not original to Desmond Fitzgerald's campaign, having been used by Joseph McGuinness in the 1918 election, and perhaps by other republican candidates, according to wictionary.

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding ALT6, I don't see why the slogan is a problem: regardless of how many times it was used before or since, it was used in the Fitzgerald campaign, and that is all the hook is claiming. (It's also quite intriguing.) I would probably delete the comma in that hook, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer still needed to check ALT hooks. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This article is almost there!
  • ALT 3 not verified: while the Echo and Bourke confirm that at first Desmond attended meetings to see Mabel, neither posits a causal connection between meeting her and his becoming more radical as the article suggests. Neither one makes the comparison to say FitzGerald was less radical than she was when they first met.
  • ALT 5 is verified
  • ALT 6 is probably OK too, though if one were to be nitpicky the hook seems to suggest she was behind the slogan which isn't corroborated by Mansergh (who doesn't even mention Mabel by name; as another editor noted, it was quite a common slogan at the time)
  • Additionally, the generalization "She also became more conservative in her views as she got older" is not supported solely on the basis of the quote above (though may be in the rest of the book; I'm willing to AGF if it is); the quote only mentions her views on universal suffrage and it may require a WP:SYNTH to conclude she's become more conservative, especially as other views are not mentioned
  • Those are the only issues; I'll approve this article as soon as these are addressed. Intelligentsium 21:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Intelligentsium My preference is for some variation of ALT 5 - I don't know that 6 is more than that she did run his campaign and that was the slogan - not that she created the slogan. I would need to research a lot more to prove that idea and I don't know that it is the case. Everything I've read about her suggests she was the original activist and everything I've read about him says he wanted to be a writer. But again I'd need to go back and find out more citations. I'm a tad snowed under at the moment though entirely likely to be free in a few weeks. If you can point to which of these you feel needs the most work I can get started on them? Have I missed comments further up? As I say - I'm a little time and brain shy at the minute. ☕ Antiqueight haver 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT5 hook, length, and date verified. I would say the most important issue to address is whether there is in fact a causal connection between Desmond's attending meetings to see her and his becoming more radical. I might rephrase the bit about her becoming more conservative also, though I consider that more of an issue of semantics. Intelligentsium 23:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Mabel_McConnell_Fitzgerald&oldid=1018093867"