Talk:Dorothy Cowser Yancy

Sources

Be sure you’re doing deep dives for sources. You will have to go beyond what is available on the web. Make use of the library's resources, please, and be sure you're using Harvard citations like we did in our first project. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have found a source for Yancy. However, I'm having problems going deep. I have never been good at doing research and I've used the library sources before, but they never seem to help. Do you have any suggestions? --AutumnMM97 (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@AutumnMM97: Yes, contact our librarian (info on the assignment page). She is there to help. —Grlucas (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have found a couple sources but I am having trouble doing the citation part. Since the last project the citation part has gave me a lot of questions. Does anyone have any suggestions? —- Taeeees (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Taeeees: What questions do you have? --AutumnMM97 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Would it be relevant to add an "Honors" section? There was a building named after her at Johnson C. Smith University that I saw an article about. -User:Eswill01 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eswill01: I was thinking the same thing becuase she has had some great accomplishments and awards that she received--Jmshepp912 (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@eswill01: I think that could go under the career section if I’m not mistaken. I do like your idea of a “Honors” section though.— Taeeees (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

When adding sources, let's make them complete sentences so that it is easier to reorganize the article if needed.C.pinkston (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Update, I added my source, some information, and cited it. Do note, I believe the article that I found could be a great source of information for this page. Furthermore, Wikipedia citation works differently involving url links to Galileo articles. Just be prepared or researched to make sure your edit is properly published. I ran into that issue and it was an easy fix but you may want to sure to keep your sources bookmarked for issues that may arise as such. Cross0023 (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

I asked the librarian for assistance, and most of what she came back with that was useful was from the internet, so I went ahead and used those. Is that OK? JREubanks (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@JREubanks: Could you list off what sources of information were useful or even not useful for future use? I was going to search in Galileo for any sources. Cross0023 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

Folks, once again, we should be using Harvard citations and shortened footnotes with the {{sfn}} template in our article. Everyone who has added a source has not followed this guideline. Fortunately this is easy to fix. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the last edit by HeadBomb took off our refharv citations on both articles, is that okay or does it need to be changed back? C.pinkston (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@C.pinkston: Apparently, "ref=harv" is not necessary anymore. That's WP for you: always changing. —Grlucas (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

October 21, 2020

@Brebre143, Jayla P, Taeeees, Hestera nmac3108, JREubanks, C.pinkston, Jmshepp912, AutumnMM97, KHunter7, Chaseducharme, KLJordan, Cross0023, Eswill01, JRDavisjr, Morganwiggins928, and Jasmarie1215: A solid start to the article, though there is much to do! You should be working on this daily until the end of the semester to get it perfect. We're aiming to meet FA criteria here, so we need to be meticulous. I have a couple of notes.

See my last corrections after this week of editing. There are quite a few.

Again, please use sfn (see above). I have corrected this several times to show how it is done. It's up to you now to be sure it's right. Some sources are questionable, like those with no authors and no publication dates. I suggest we try to get rid of these. Be wary of source order in the works cited §; I left a note in there about correct order. Page numbers must be used from print sources.

We must start adding categories, too. These just have to be searched for.

Typos are unacceptable. Errors you leave for someone else to correct are also unacceptable—especially obvious ones. Please preview before saving. Make multiple edits before saving. Mark minor edits, too, when you make them. All of this is good WP etiquette.

Start thinking big picture, rather than just adding sentence willy-nilly. You might pick a section to work on and spend some time focusing.

Keep at it! —Grlucas (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Formatting Categories

I know that my formatting for the categories are wrong, but I am not sure how to fix it. I've looked at our old articles and other pages, but can't seem to figure out how to separate them and get the box around them. C.pinkston (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@C.pinkston: Categories must not be active in draft articles. When we publish the article, all we have to do is remove the colon in front of "Category" to activate them. —Grlucas (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank youC.pinkston (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Some Thoughts

I was reading over our article, and I feel like it is coming along pretty well, but I have a couple of thoughts that I wanted to share. Firstly, I am not sure that the sentence "Growing up in the rural South inspired Yancy to change the world around her." works best in the lead paragraph. I like the nature of this statement, but I feel like it might be better served in the "Early Life" section of the article, especially as that section is kind of small. The same thing occurs to me for the list that is currently in the lead paragraph of the degrees that she has earned. Does anyone else have any thoughts on these matters?

@JREubanks: Agreed. These kinds non-specific statements should be avoided. Also, citations really should not appear in the lead; they should be reserved for the body of the article. —Grlucas (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, I noticed that in one of the articles that I edited for class, (Not one for the Women in Red project) someone stated that it was bad form to list the names of children. Does anyone know anything about this or why it might be the case? If it is indeed frowned upon, we ought to remove the name of Cowser's daughter. I am unsure about the criteria around this matter, but I thought that this would be the palce to bring it up to see if anyone else knows anything about it. JREubanks (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@JREubanks: I have written many biographies and have had no issue in including children's names—as long as they are verifiable in secondary sources. (See WP:LPNAME for the policy, second ¶.) —Grlucas (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Terminology

Thought I would point out that I thought "academe" in the lead paragraph was a typo until I googled it. Would it be better to use "academia" for clarity, since it is a more commonly used synonym? I've also noticed that there are several duplicate wikilinks in the article. I'm under the impression that it's best to only link to a topic the first time it's mentioned, but i may be wrong? - Eswill01 (talk) 21:34, 03 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree about using "academia" because I think people are more familiar with that term; I was going to include that point in my own review.Hestera nmac3108 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello, everyone. Here is my article peer review. I think all of you have a really good start here. Everyone is using the correct tone of voice for Wikipedia and your sources with good as well. One thing that I would suggest is to switch from using bullet points in the accomplishments section to a paragraph. That might help the article flow a little better, but that is just my opinion. Other than that, I think you all have a very good start.KLJordan (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

Hi, just wanted to add my article review.

• I commented further up the page agreeing that I might use "academia" instead of "academe" they seem to be interchangeable and I think more people are familiar with "academia"
• I think the content is very good. Everything is relevant, and I think there is good coverage of Yancy's career and contributions
• The article is worded neutrally
• I think it reads a little choppy in places and could use a little cleanup - the capitalization in the bulleted list at the bottom is inconsistent, and ending with "and much more" seems awkward
• The first sentence under the career section seems to need a citation
• Are each of the awards at the bottom from the same source? None of them have a citation next to them, just the citation after "and many more." Is there any detail that can be added on the "Lifetime Achievement Award?" (it is wiki-linked to a re-direct page which doesn't seem optimal)
• The source by Gilbert, Marsha seems to have a broken link to EBSCO host rather than the actual source material
• The info-box could probably be expanded given the amount of information included in the article, especially info about her education

Great work on the article so far! I think it just needs some attention to detail here and there. Hestera nmac3108 (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both of you on the bulleted list, I will work on some of these suggestions now. C.pinkston (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

So I worked on some of your suggestions, the career section is slightly better but most likely still needs better readability. I added the personal life section back only because the info needs a source and it is probably not the best to only have it mentioned in the infobox. I also removed the bad links in the works cited section. Most of them were ebsco permalinks which do not work unfortunately. I also took out the last few unreliable sources(the ones with no author and date). I also missed changing academe to academia, will do. C.pinkston (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hestera nmac3108: Hi, I wanted to thank you for the review. I added and fixed the honors sections as you pointed out. Also, it was my bad about the EBSO link. I'm not sure if there is a real solution besides leaving the source link-less. Any help or further advice will always be appreciated. Thank you! Cross0023 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Deletions

I added a source from Clemson University and it got deleted I felt this source was reliable coming from a respectable university and it also included information that I could use in the achievement section this source is from 2020. As a group could we please discuss deletions prior because it takes a lot of effort to to format these sources. Also, I accidentally deleted a list from the awards section. Jayla P (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jayla P: I think I found the accidental deletion you were talking about and fixed it. As for the Clemson source, as much as I think it would be helpful to use, it does not have an official date or author listed, which is critical. This source was one of the first ones we cited when the article was made, but scrapped it for something more reliable. This was also noted in the "October 21, 2020" section above. I will also start using templates first before deletion just so everyone gets a fair chance at fixing it. C.pinkston (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Honors section

I see that a lot of work is still needed in the honors section. I do not think there suppose to be (citation needed) everywhere — Taeeees (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am working on finding sources for those. If they can't be found, it is getting deleted. Some of the second paragraph in the lead would also fit better in the early life section if we can source it. C.pinkston (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I found a citation for one of the items that needed a citation in the honors section, but I am drawing a blank for these others. I move that we go ahead and delete these items that we can't find sources for. What do you all think? JREubanks (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am also looking for sources for those, do y’all know what is missing or needed to be added to complete this article?— Taeeees (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I was working on trying to find sources for the honors section, and I noticed something that needs some attention. Where it says that she won the lifetime achievement award, does anyone know who gave the award to her, what lifetime achievement award it was? That information is necessary to know to search for a source. I feel strongly that the remaining awards/honors without citations should just be deleted. JREubanks (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@JREubanks: @Taeeees: I agree, that way we can get rid of the list format. We also should try working on the flow of that section as well since it gets repetitive sentence structure-wise. I can tidy it up, but multiple readers to check over it and improve it would be great. I'm also kind of undecided about the last sentence in the personal life section. I'm not sure if its noteworthy enough.C.pinkston (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@JREubanks and C.pinkston: I went ahead and added to the honors section. I also cleaned up the list format using J.K. Rowling's page as an example. Cross0023 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cross0023: Thank you and I will see if those non-dated awards have a source that can give a date for them. C.pinkston (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead Section

I moved some of the lead section into the other areas of the article if anyone is wondering where it went. One of the peer reviews mentions keeping the lead simple and not too repetitive, especially if it can fit in another section. Also please don't forget to add shortened footnotes on the sentences you add (except in the lead section, they don't need citations). It gets tough going back through every source to find one piece of information.C.pinkston (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I really suggest everyone view other wiki pages such as Beyonce, Michael Jordan, Kamala Harris, from my understanding lead paragraphs are supposed to give a synopsis of what the entire wiki article is about? I picked the lead section to work on I was working on the lead paragraph in its entirety.Jayla P (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You make a great point. I read the manual to see what we are missing and it needs her work at the campuses mentioned briefly without being too specific. I think we could do the same with her awards too. That way it is introduced, then explained later. Thank you for making the article better. C.pinkston (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@C.pinkston and Jayla P: You are both correct. Often, it's easier to write the lead last, after the body of the article is complete or nearly so. —Grlucas (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned her work in a general way for the lead, hopefully it is not too indirect. C.pinkston (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Flow

I think at this point in time it might be appropriate to start making sure that all of our contributions flow well when reading. I edited early life to achieve this, as it stood out as seeming like our individual contributions were making it choppy when reading. -Eswill01 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

November 17, 2020: Image

Exciting news, I managed to find some Wikipedia capable/approved pictures for our article! The picture of Yancy took a considerable amount of time to find. I'm unsure: if there is a way to crop into the photo so it may become a portrait, if a group photo is appropriate, or if the location is optimal but it is the only eligible photo that I could find and the info-box felt right for the moment. Cross0023 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cross0023: Great work. According to the license, you may crop the photo, which would be appropriate. Well done. —Grlucas (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

November 19, 2020: Some Notes

Congratulation, editors. You have come a long way on this article. I can see by the edits for this week, 11/11–11/17, that you are getting near the end. This is a great place to be, but it makes additional edits even more difficult.

Additions have been made without citations, like this one. How does this happen? Citations in general need to be dealt with. There are currently four big red errors listed in the citations section. These will not fix themselves. What's the issue here?

Be careful with revision. I have noticed that many who try to revise end up adding more words; you should be doing the opposite. Eliminate filler words. Do not add words at this point, but make your prose more economical. Tighter. E.g., is "stepped into the role of" really better than "became"? (Yes, you can still add information, but avoid any revisions where you add awkward phrases or wordiness. Does that make sense?) And, for goodness sake, stop with the honors list—and we have a table now! This huge list seems unnecessary, as it just replicates a list from a source. Could you stick with the most prestigious awards? Cut this way back.

Someone tell me what's wrong with using "Mrs Yancy" in this article? (See Personal life §.) Are education and alma mater both needed in the infobox? There seems to be quite a bit missing from the infobox, too.

There's still a bit of overlinking. Does Ph.D. really need to be linked? Europe? Why not? Time for a major clean-up.

Looking forward to this week, you should be putting the final touches on this article, incorporating Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Keep going! We are nearing the end. —Grlucas (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Info Box

I filled in some more of the info box, but I have seen on some pages like Harvard University president's infobox that have his tenures and former jobs separated. I think it would be a nice addition to our page, but had difficulty adding it when following their format and received an error message. C.pinkston (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@C.pinkston: Bacow's infobox is for an officeholder; Yancy's is for an academic. Change it if you think it's a better option. —Grlucas (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Consider adding to DYK

Editors, one of you could start the process of adding this article to Wikipedia:Did you know. It will have to be published first (all obvious errors fixed), so keep that in mind. Coordinate with me if this is something you'd like to do. —Grlucas (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)