Talk:Inez Robb

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Inez Robb/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 01:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems interesting. I'll have a review posted within the next couple days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sammielh, I've done the source review, and enough close paraphrasing came up that it needs to be addressed before anything else. I'm not going to quickfail the review, but it's unclear at this point how much of an issue it is. I suggest going through the article and checking where the text resembles the source, especially in places where a long passage is only supported by one source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Thank you for taking a look at this and sorry for the delay, it's been a super busy week. I'll take a look through the article this weekend and try to resolve the issues. Sammielh (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: I've reviewed the article for any close paraphrasing and I've responded to your comments below. Sammielh (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sammielh I've reviewed the article. My main thought after reading it is that a lot of the facts raise questions that might leave the reader wanting. Though I do realize that sources about Robb are probably limited. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: The issue isn't lack of sources so much as all of them saying the same few things about her. I've tried to add in a bit more from a couple of very helpful sources that I stumbled across while researching another female war correspondent of the time, but it has been difficult to create a "narrative" rather than a series of facts about her. Hopefully there's some improvement now! Sammielh (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sammielh All right, this has basically passed at this point. The only concern I still have is that it can still be read as She joined the Delta Gamma sorority [...] to advocate for ratification of the 19th amendment in the state legislature. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Thank you so much for your review! I've switched the order of the sentence, which should hopefully take care of that issue. Sammielh (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This had the opposite problem where it could be read as She joined a university committee to advocate for [...] the Delta Gamma sorority. This seems like a silly thing to hold up the review over, so I made a quick change to the wording by splitting it into two sentences. Feel free to fiddle with the wording some more if you think there's a better way to present the information. In the meantime, I'll be happy to pass the article as a GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

General notes:

• Currencies should usually be accompanied by Template:Inflation so they're understandable.
  • Added in.
• Make sure to call her by her name the first time she's mentioned in a new paragraph. It can be confusing to start a paragraph with "she".
  • Amended these.
• MOS:SURNAME says that her surname at the time should be used. So prior to her marriage, she was Callaway, not Robb.
  • I never knew that! Changed (and should probably go back and change in previous articles...)

Early life:

• he moved the family to her grandparents' ranch near Caldwell, Idaho – Do we know why? The way this sentence is worded makes it sound like there's some specific intent.
  • I have reworded.
• and they and their cousins were encouraged by the family to be thoughtful and share their opinions – This is vague enough that it doesn't really mean anything, and her cousins aren't really relevant to the article. I suggest removing this.
  • Removed.
• Although the editor wanted a boy, she wrote for the paper for the next couple years – Then how did she get hired?
  • Expanded slightly although there isn't much information about this.
• I don't know what the MoS expectation is for this, but I think Moscow is associated with Russia to the point that "Moscow, Idaho," should be specified in the article.
  • Specified.
• She joined a sorority and a university committee to advocate for ratification of the 19th amendment in the state legislature. – Do we know which sorority? Also, this wording makes it seem like she joined the sorority to advocate ratification.
  • Added in the name of the sorority. Does that help with the wording?

Career:

• under the byline of Nancy Randolph – Why?
  • Explained.
• although she approached her subject the same way she had the news, with an investigative eye and humor – This doesn't really say anything meaningful.
  • Removed.
• The second paragraph of "New York Daily News" feels like it's out of order. It gives one specific example of what she wrote about, and then it lists examples of what she wrote about at the end of the paragraph.
  • Re-arranged.
• Hitler's plans for gas warfare – If this is referring to chemical warfare, that's a more common term for it.
  • Amended.
• Although she was covering World War II – What is the "although" for?
  • Clarified.
• although it was quickly resolved – Was it resolved in a way that had any meaningful change? If not, the dispute might not be relevant at all.
  • Removed.
• which sent Robb flying – This seems dramatic.
  • Reworded.
• She was the first female correspondent to be honored with the prize and subsequently covered the 1953 coronation – These two ideas seem to be entirely unrelated.
  • Reworded.
• She was sued for libel in 1955, following a column that she wrote – What did she write? Who won the lawsuit?
  • I've tried to expand, although I wasn't able to find any details about who won (I assume it was unsuccessful as Confidential was later sued for criminal libel, but no evidence of the case being dropped).

Later life:

• Her husband died of a heart attack in 1979 – Do we know the date, or at least the month? Right now we don't actually know who died first.
  • Added this.

Death and legacy:

• She received honors during her career from the New York Newspaper Women's Club and Theta Sigma Phi. – Is this relevant to her death? If not, it shouldn't be grouped into the same paragraph with it.
  • Moved.
• Robb is largely forgotten in the modern day – This is a debatable claim. I suggest either attributing this or giving a more specific description of how well known she is.
  • I have attributed this.
• however she did not work publicly to challenge the barriers that prevented other women from joining the profession – This seems judgemental rather than descriptive. It's usually not necessary to describe what someone didn't do.
  • Removed.

Verifiable with no original research

I'm a little hesitant about using a thesis as a source, but it's good enough for GA, especially since it looks like Edy was already published by the time of the thesis. All other sources seem reliable.

I'm pretty sure the thesis is republished as the book which is in further reading but as I can't find a full-text version of the book, I have had to retain the thesis. Sammielh (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks:

• Time (1962) – Y
• Edy (2010) p. 86 – Close paraphrasing: Robb attended the University of Idaho on a full scholarship in 1918, where she joined a sorority and was a writer for two local papers. She joined a university committee to advocate for ratification of the 19th amendment, giving women the right to vote, in the state legislature versus the source: Robb won a full scholarship to attend the University of Idaho in 1918. She belonged to a sorority, wrote for two local newspapers and served on a campus committee charged with persuading the Idaho legislature to ratify the 19th amendment and grant women the right to vote. The article takes the same sentences from the source and just changes or rearranges the words. Only the facts and ideas should be taken from the source, not the wording or sentence structure, or even necessarily the order they're presented if there's more than one valid way to present them.
  • Re-worded. It's difficult for some of these to rephrase too much where there's only one source covering a certain aspect of her life but let me know if any issues remain.
    • It's generally not a huge issue if there are WP:LIMITED ways to say the same thing.
• Edy (2019) – Does this support that she was #327 of 600? If not, it might be good to move this citation up a sentence.
  • Moved up.
• Clark (1979) – Close paraphrasing: In November 1953, Robb left her job with the INS and began writing a column for Scripps-Howard and United Feature Syndicate. Her column was carried by 140 newspapers. versus In 1953 she joined the Scripps‐Howard Newspapers and the United Features Syndicate. Her column was carried in 140 newspapers.
  • Re-worded.
• Riley (1995) – Not necessarily close paraphrasing (though suggestive of it): but the way it's written, it feels like Peron and Queen Elizabeth are only in the same sentence because that's how they're arranged in the source.
  • Added an additional source here and re-arranged.

Broad in its coverage

No major part of her life is omitted. No excessive detail.

Neutral

No neutrality issues or undue weight.

Stable

No disputes, no reason to believe the content in the article will soon need to be significantly changed.

Illustrated

File:Commencement speaker Inez Callaway Robb.jpg and File:Commencement speaker Inez Callaway Robb (02).jpg should have more specific tags so we know why they're public domain. Images from the 1950s are recent enough to need a reason why they're in the public domain.

I'll admit to not being an expert on image copyright. The source has it listed as Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal but I wasn't able to find that on Commons as an option. I've replaced it with what I think is the correct template. Sammielh (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but I'm pretty sure you did it right.