This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hudson Valley, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Hudson Valley of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's History and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I've reduced this section a bit, since it lacks inline citations and relies quite heavily on a single historian's particular viewpoint. (The rewritten version has inline citations to the JSTOR article, but alas, I don't seem to have access to the book through any local libraries.) I've also moved it to be a subsection of the First Lady section, since it appears to primarily deal with her writings in the White House years. As always, let me know if I'm overstepping myself; I'm glad to discuss if anybody has differing opinions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've sourced most of the information in the article now, and wrangled a few redundant or overlapping sections into what appears to me a more straightforward outline. I've also reduced a few more sections that appeared to me to get undue weight (such as the Spellman fight). Here are some things I think the article still needs, which I'll be addressing in the coming week: *a mention in the marriage section of FDR's late-in-life attempt to reconcile with ER and live as husband and wife*More detail on her growing political role in the '20s, particularly the way she would tour as FDR's "eyes and ears" as governor
More detail on her role in the UN DHR
I've got a pile of books to look things up in at the moment, so I'm glad to take any suggestions that others may have for this "to do" list. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a great article, very close to GA status already. I might have just gone ahead and promoted it but I figured I would give my thoughts below and see what you think. Many of them are minor things about wording, so if you disagree with them that's not a deal breaker. I read this article aloud to a buddy who's a history buff and has read a bunch of the books cited. He agrees that it is neutral and comprehensive and thinks highly of the article as well. Here's some feedback, let me know what you think. delldot∇. 02:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone Two mentions of UDHR in lead, first and last paras, maybe combine?
Redundancy fixed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
She advocated for the civil rights of African Americans and Japanese Americans, expanded roles for women in the workplace, and the rights of World War II refugees.
I think you forgot to note the issue on this one... if it's something really obvious, I apologize for being dense. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, this is a redundancy issue again. Fixed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Duh, sure did, sorry. I had trouble with the "expanded", which when you're reading through the sentence looks like an active verb: "she advocated for civil rights, she expanded roles..." delldot∇. 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I just moved the "expanded roles" to the first item in the list, maybe that fixes it, see what you think. delldot∇. 06:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone Maybe break this long sentence into two: Roosevelt attended the school from 1899–1902. The headmistress, Marie Souvestre, was a noted feminist educator who sought to cultivate independent thinking in the young women in her charge, and took a special interest in Roosevelt, who learned to speak French fluently and gained self-confidence.
YDone This is a confused way of presenting the townhouse because it's mentioned and then introduced: Returning to the U.S., the newlyweds settled in New York City, in a house provided by Franklin's mother, as well as at the family's estate overlooking the Hudson River in Hyde Park, New York. From the beginning, Eleanor had a contentious relationship with her domineering mother-in-law. Sara gave Eleanor and Franklin a townhouse
Reworded. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone is 'domineering' npov? How about 'controlling'? I'm not sure if that's particularly better. It's better to "show don't tell" of course, which is what the part about Sarah does.
Changed. Controlling does seem a touch less judgmental. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Works for me if you're ok with it. delldot∇. 06:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Franklin's mother, Sara Delano Roosevelt, opposed the union, and made him promise that the engagement would not be officially announced for a year If you can fit it briefly, it might be interesting to include a quick bit about why she opposed it.
Let me see if I can find a specific rationale in Cook or another source.
Ok, cool, if it's complicated or not that germane no need since the article's already kind of long. delldot∇. 06:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
First Lady of the United States (1933–1945)
YDone awkward: She was the first First Lady to hold press conferences
Changed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone Passive voice is awkward in sentences like this: Herbert Hoover had ordered them dispersed, resulting in the veterans being charged by US Army cavalry charge and bombarded with tear gas. better to reword to active voice
Reworded. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone I'm not sure if this paragraph belongs in an article about Elanor, it's more Franklin's thing: One social highlight of the Roosevelt presidency was the June 1939 visit of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, the first British monarchs to set foot on U.S. soil. The Roosevelts attracted some media attention for including hot dogs on the menu of a picnic at Hyde Park, which George enjoyed enough to ask for seconds.
I agree. This is left over from a previous version of the article, in part because I felt bad about deleting so much of what was here before I started revisions. But since you agree, I've removed it. It didn't seem to feature prominently in bios of Eleanor that I read. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Right on, I think that was the right choice, but I just realized that leaves the picture of the King and Queen with her without context in the article. I don't know what to do about it or if anything is needed, just thought I'd mention it (I had also thought the shot of her with Sinatra was a little weird since there's no mention of the singer). delldot∇. 06:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone avoid passive voice: The project was enthusiastically supported by her husband.
Reworded. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone Is this correct? Conservatives condemned it as socialist and a "communist plot", while Democratic members of Congress opposed government competition with private enterprise Wouldn't the latter also be a conservative view? What's the quote from the source?
Odd, but true: "The war against Arthurdale's solvency was led by Democrats who deplored government competition with private business." (Cook 144) -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Use of media
YDone In February 1933, she published an editorial in the Women's Daily News conflicting so sharply with her husband's intended public spending policies that he published a rejoinder in the following issue. Is this date correct? She wouldn't have been first lady yet. The para starts with "On entering the White House…"
Reordered para for better chronology. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
World War II
YDoneRoosevelt herself was forced to resign following anger in the House of Representatives what did she resign from?
As co-chair of the OCD, which she shared with LaGuardia. Added a note to clarify. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
YDonesix Soviet Bloc countries (Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, and Yugoslavia) I don't know if it's necessary to list all the countries in an article this general and tangential.
I agree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone Eliminate passive voice where possible: In the late 1940s, Roosevelt was courted for political office by Democrats in New York and throughout the country.
YDone I'm actually not too sure this section is necessary either, at least not a whole paragraph about the bronze statue. Maybe these sections could be combined into Honors, awards, and memorials?
I agree. Done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Replace instances of "Roosevelt" with "Eleanor". Sentences like Roosevelt was also active on the homefront are very awkward and confusing since many of them involve discussion of her husband as well. In this one, it's tough to tell whether it's Eleanor or her son: In 1954, Tammany Hall boss Carmine DeSapio defeated Roosevelt's son, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., during the New York Attorney General elections. Roosevelt grew increasingly disgusted with DeSapio's political conduct through the rest of the 1950s. I have changed some instances. I know using a person's first name is a little informal, although 'Eleanor' and 'Franklin' are used a lot in the article already. What do you think of 'ER' and 'Eleanor Roosevelt'? I'm not sure if it's better to use one name for consistency, or to vary it up so it's less repetitive. In paragraphs where there would be way too many Eleanors if the Roosevelts were all replaced, maybe we could do something clever with the wording.
I agree that when another Roosevelt is mentioned in a paragraph, it's better to switch to Eleanor, but I think after FDR's death it's clear enough to call her Roosevelt (except in the instance you mention above.) I don't have any strong objection to ER, but it didn't appear commonly used in sources beyond the Cook bio. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I think ER was more in use when she was alive, it probably fell out of use when people stopped talking about her as much. But if you don't mind Eleanor and ER I prefer those over all the Roosevelts partly because I expect when most people see that they will kind of expect the rest of the sentence to be about FDR (or Teddy). The suggestion my buddy made was to go through and replace mentions of her public life with ER and private life with Eleanor. I'll leave this up to you though, I already changed the name in the sentences that I found really confusing. delldot∇. 07:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The word 'precedent' is kind of awkward in sentences that also use the word 'president' or talk about a president. Is there another word we could replace it with? e.g. setting a precedent for future presidential libraries.
I've worked on rewording this, but I'm stumped. The specific innovation here is that FDR left provisions to create a library and museum from his papers, which past presidents apparently hadn't done. "Became a model" or "setting an example" makes it sound too laudatory. But I can't find a way to get the word "president" or "presidential" out of there either. Any suggestions? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
This is so trivial I don't want to make a big deal out of it. Some suggestions though: "becoming the first in what would become customary (a tradition)"? "opened on April 12, 1946, becoming the first of many (or of 13) presidential libraries"? "which 12 later presidents would also do (emulate)"? I dunno, if you don't like any of these don't worry about it. delldot∇. 07:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone Change passive to active voice, e.g. funeral at Hyde Park was attended by President John F. Kennedy
Changed many of these (including that one). A few seem preferable to me for various reasons of sentence/paragraph structure, etc. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone There's a broken template parameter in the first ref: Beasley, Maurine (1986). "Eleanor Roosevelt's Vision of Journalism: A Communications Medium for Women". Presidential Studies Quarterly 16 (1): 66–75 ref=harv.
The article relies really heavily on Goodwin and Cook. I know it's discouraged to use one or a few sources too heavily, but I don't know if it's a problem here since there are many other sources used as well. Still, there are probably 100 books on ER, it couldn't hurt to use some info from them just so you can assure that everything is balanced. (Not that I can find anything unbalanced, the treatment of controversial stuff is very careful to use many sources and discuss both points of view). I won't demand more books for the GA nom but if you take it to FAC be aware that this might come up.
Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that this article is limited by what I can get from my local library or was willing to go out-of-pocket to purchase by mail. I might make more of an effort to confirm some basic facts from Google Books sources, etc. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Right on, this can be a gradual thing that happens as you keep working on the article. delldot∇. 07:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
YDone I don't think we need the see also section at all, of course a president and first lady are going to have high schools and stuff named after them, I doubt those things are central enough to the topic to be included here. IIRC See Also sections are kind of discouraged at places like FAC.
Removed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Really great work, once again! Look forward to hearing back from you about this feedback. Peace, delldot∇. 02:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much! At first glance, I agree with pretty much all of your comments, and will continue work on this in the morning. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've addressed the bulk of your concerns. Let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Two other really minor things:
Is the picture with the dog supposed to dip down into the other relationships section like that? Other left-aligned photos are underneath the header.
Is there a reason why FDR's article is linked in the captions of the photo and sound bite in the UN section? delldot∇. 07:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the responses, it's very gratifying to see one's suggestions treated with such thoughtfulness. I think this easily passes the GA criteria now, and I'll leave the few things that are pending or not agreed upon up to your discretion as you continue to work on it. Brief rundown: well written, respects copyright (images checked), verifiable, well cited, OR-free, comprehensive, not overly detailed, neutral, stable. Excellent work! delldot∇. 07:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Per the suggestion of the GA Reviewer (which I agree with as well), I've collapsed the individual section for the statue of Eleanor Roosevelt into the death subsection. Right now this article doesn't have dedicated sections for much more significant and widely discussed aspects of her life--her possible lesbian affair, her advocacy for women's rights, her work as First Lady of New York, etc.--so a full section for this statue seems excessive. If the statue is internationally famous in a way that I'm not understanding, though, I'd be happy to look at additional sources on this and help expand. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Khazar: the memorial is notable (if not internationally famous) as the first American monument to a First Lady. Rather than give it a separate section, I separated it into a second paragraph, owing to the gap in years between Roosevelt's death and the monument's dedication. Also I created a new Wikipedia article for the monument (along the lines of other articles about Riverside Park monuments), and will embellish it there, rather than in the ER article. Buckyboot (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
That's an excellent solution--thanks. Do you have a source that this was the 1st american monument to a first lady? That would be a good sentence to add to the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I can only find two sources: a 1996 article in the NY Times states that the monument's backers claimed that the monument was the first dedicated to a "president's wife." I don't understand how that differs from a "first lady" except to enlarge the pool of candidates, i.e. to include women who were married to a president and may have been or not been First Lady. Secondly, the Riverside Park Conservancy website makes a similar claim. I cannot find another monument to a president's wife, searching online, and I am not sure how to prove a "negative" in this case. Perhaps the claim should be mentioned, but qualified as a claim, rather than a fact.Buckyboot (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sound good. Could you add the NYT citaiton to the article? Or if you give a link, I'll be happy to do it. Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Tomorrow Is Now (Penguin Classics) [Paperback] Eleanor Roosevelt (Author), Allida Black (Introduction), Bill Clinton (Foreword)
Tomorrow Is Now (Penguin Classics) [Paperback] Eleanor Roosevelt (Author), Allida Black (Introduction), Bill Clinton (Foreword)
No need to shout. =) The article doesn't currently have a list of her complete works, so I see no need to include this one. It didn't appear from her biographical materials that I looked at to be particularly significant. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Eleanor Roosevelt was a common target of Nazi propagandists. This might be mentioned.
Can you please suggest a reference which can be used to support such material? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
A self-published website isn't a very good source by Wikipedia standards. (See our policy on reliable sources). Can you check one of Roosevelt's biographies for this?
Though I personally find this interesting, I should warn you, too, that as a summary of a long public career, this article can't include every detail about her life, so we'll want to be sure it's a topic that her biographies discuss in detail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I've removed an addition of ER's extended family tree to the infobox, which overloads it with information; per the infobox instructions, "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject", which a complete list of her extended family surely isn't. It's also odd and inaccurate to replace "African Americans" with "Africans" and "Asian Americans" with "Asians". I did leave her parents in, though--thanks for that addition. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)