Talk:Elizabeth Hazelton Haight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

thanks Victuallers (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

An excellent topic for a GA - I'd be happy to offer a review. At the moment, I always seem to review in spare minutes between other things, so my comments may come in dribs and drabs. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The lead section is probably too short at two short sentences. As a shorter article, it's firmly in the "one or two paragraphs" range per MOS:LEADLENGTH, so I would recommend one fairly substantial paragraph or two shorter paragraphs.
  • You seem to be using American date formats but British spelling - consistency would be good. I would recommend going with American dates and spelling as she was American.
  • In the paragraph starting "Haight matriculated at", could you specify the subject of her degrees? Classics, presumably? - Clarified
  • What is "the Yearbook"? Is this a specific publication? - no, so have de-capitalised.
  • "In the intervening period" - Between her degrees? Perhaps the paragraph could be rearranged to be a little more chronological - you may also want to think about splitting it.
  • "During her graduate study, she held teaching posts in preparatory schools in New York State." Is this repetition of the already listed schools? Or do you mean to say she continued teaching at unnamed schools post-1900?

Stopping there for now (sorry...). Please double-check my edits so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Again - you talk about her time as faculty at Vasser out of chronological order. I'd be the last to say that stories are always best told chronologically, but in this case, it strikes me that being a little more chronological would be a help to readers.
  • Could you check the "privileged princesses" quote? You appear to be missing some quote marks.

*Could we have a wikilink or explanation for "Founders' Day"? It's not a holiday I know. Done!

  • Could you specify the date and (if known) cause of death in the final paragraph of the career section? Don't worry about repeating content from the lead - a lead shouldn't contain any information not elsewhere in the article anyway.
  • There's a degree of inconsistency with the capitalistion of the initial letter of "classics", "classical" and similar. Could I ask you to take another look?
  • It's a little jarring that you call the Italy book her first but then list two prior to it in the bibliography. I can definitely see why you've done this, but perhaps it could be reframed. Adjusted for clarity
  • "reflecting the success of her attempts to make these works accessible to multiple audiences" Do you have a source for this claim? Otherwise, it comes across as editorialising, and thus "original research".
  • Could you add an appropriate wikilink for "symbolism"?
  • Could you include the publishers as well as the locations in the selected publications section?
  • You don't include the history of Vassar in the list - was this deliberate?

I don't want to get bogged down in reference formatting and such at GAC, but, looking at the references:

  • You twice cite Find a Grave, which is not a reliable source. They should really be replaced, and if no replacement can be found, the information should be removed.
  • Your "Database of Classical Scholars" link is dead. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a source, but it would be better if you replaced it with a live link, or included an archive url. (If that's meaningless to you, tell me, and I'll look into it.) Fixed the link!
  • I assume you're citing the McManus book, rather than the webpage you link to. I'd advise removing the link. A link to an online copy of the book is one thing, but a link to a webpage about the book is another entirely. Done
  • Are the two NYT sources the same? If so, could they be merged into one footnote?

And questions on categories:

That's what jumps out at me on a first read-through. Again, it's great to see this article here, and I'm hopeful that this will make a decent GA. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Josh Milburn - I'll start working through these suggested edits now, and indicate on your list what I've done as I work through them. It may take me a few days as I'm editing in free time around work. KateCook (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)