Talk:Rose O'Neill/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Prose

I've given the article a copyedit. If you disagree with anything I've done, feel free to revert.

• There are a couple of nuattributed quotations. I've marked them with {{attribution needed}}. Quotations require not just a citation, but must be attributed to the source in the body of the article itself (e.g. According to Curly Turkey, "A squid in a polyethelene bag is fast and bulbous.").

Noted these and included attribution of these quotes to the source author, a biography/art historian. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Concerned with the welfare of her family, O'Neill sent much of her paycheck home. With it her family built a fifteen-room mansion."—this jumps out suddenly at the end of the paragraph; they way it's introduced, the reader'd assume it had something to do with Letham. Maybe bump this into its own paragraph? Or to the beginning of the paragraph?

Addressed this; this is a detail from her biography, though I am not sure it's necessarily needed--it is made clear later on that she made a considerable income. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "where she filed for divorce in 1901"—this comes as a surprise, as we haven't been told they got married.
• The Loves of Edwy—I'm not sure what the reviews tell us. Do they sum up the book's reception in general? If not, they come off as somewhat WP:UNDUE—almost promoting the book. I'd cut it and move the one sentence to the end of the last paragraph.

Noted. I removed the praising quote about the narrative, and left the general comment on O'Neill's illustrations. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "In culture"—one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon, and one-sentence sections even more so. Is there a better way to handle this? Could it be

worked into the many biography? Regardless, "In culture" sounds a bit strange—wouldn't her illustrations and Kewpie also be "in culture"?

Incorporated this into the body of the paragraph--you're right, it doesn't warrant an entire section. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I guess my main concern is that it sounds like there's likely a lot more information on O'Neill, given she was something of a celebrity, and given the existence of the books in the "Further reading" section. It makes me wonder how comprehensive the article is.

This is reasonably true, though from what I know, the books in the "further reading" are more focused on her Kewpies than O'Neill herself (save the Formanek-Brunell and Brewster titles).--Drown Soda (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Sources all look legit. I've added archives to some of the web sources—all but the New York times one, which is blocked by robots.txt. If you intend to take the article further, you'll definitely need to get your hands on some of those books in "Further reading". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Images

I've done some tagging cleanup. The images appear legit, but:

• File:International studio (1897) (14784336842).jpg. The drawing may date to 1897, but it appears it was published in 1922? The copyright would be from the date of publication, not creation. Could you figure this out and work out the taggin to make it clear what's happening?

Looked into this; not sure why this was posted and attributed to 1897. I changed it to 1922. --Drown Soda (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• File:Kewpie votes for women postcard.jpg wasn't actually drawn by O'Neill—I don't know if that matters
• Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it looks to me like the article meets the GA criteria. If you expect to take this earlier, you'll definitely need to get access to those books. You should also be aware that normally quotations are expected to be followed immediately by an inline citation, even if the same citation follows shortly afterwards. You won't find that in the guidelines, but many editors expect to see that—and it certainly doesn't hurt to do it, regardless.

Promoted. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)