Talk:Ruth Cupp/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 17:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to review this, with the caveat that I am not an expert in the subject matter. Overall this looks in good shape. My comments:

I am not sure why the article name is Ruth Williams Cupp. The sources call her simply Ruth Cupp. Even her own 3 books are authored with that name.

Happy to move to Ruth Cupp. Whatever the appropriate convention is, I can do that. Should I move myself or should someone else? Remember (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that yourself. See HELP:MOVE. I think we should add birth_name = Ruth Williams to the infobox. Especially since the lead image has her maiden name.

Changed infobox and moved article. Remember (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead I would link Bar association. And also in the body of the article, link the first use of bar.

Done. Remember (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupp attended --> An issue related to the first issue: I think something needs to be said about Cupp being the same person who just a sentence ago was called Ruth Williams. Have a look and see how other articles of high quality have handled this (all Wikipedia:Featured articles) Jean Bellette Constance Stokes Bronwyn Oliver Ursula K. Le Guin

I think I did the same thing as Constance Stokes in that the change just happens but you put Nee at the beginning of the article. Let me know if you want to do something different. Remember (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that seems good.

according to her book --> this comes a bit out of nowhere. I do agree it should be mentioned that the source is herself, but her book needs to be introduced. Perhaps something along the lines of "She was the sixty-fifth woman atterney admitted to the South Carolina bar, she wrote in her own book"

Revised. Remember (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She was admitted to the South Carolina bar on --> does this actually belong in the Education section? I am not familar with US law customs so maybe it is, but it sounds more a Law career topic to me

Moved. Remember (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about her time --> does this actually talk about education or does it belong in the next section?

Moved. Remember (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Later in 1954, she became the first --> that "Later" confuses me, because a few sentences prior we already had arrived at December 14 1954.

Revised. Remember (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that, "a child --> no comma here

Revised. Remember (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupp states that most, "courts --> no comma here

Revised. Remember (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupp says that this ban on women serving on juries persisted in South Carolina until after the case of White v. Crook in .... to allow women to serve. --> I have difficulty parsing this sentence. What is the subject of the verb "prompted"?

Revised. Let me know if it reads better now. Remember (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupp lost her bid for re-election --> Who was she up against? What was the margin? Anything known?

I will try to find out.Remember (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to figure out who she ran against. Let me know if you know how to find any source on that information.Remember (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winthrop believed in me when --> Although I like the quote, it does seem to repeat a lot of what just said. I think it's best to take things from the quote and weave them into the prose. I also think there should be just 1 paragraph dedicated to this issue, rather then the 4 there are now. So one long paragraph.

Ok. I will look into reworking. Remember (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked. Remember (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

later practiced at "one of the largest law firms in the state, Sinkler, Gibbs, and Simons", and later --> repetition of later

Revised. Remember (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

definitive source --> a more neutral point of view is needed. Unless you can add many, many more sources that say so.

How about I just name the source of the claim? Does that work? Remember (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work.

Done.Remember (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Crittenton Programs --> is this the same as National Florence Crittenton Mission? Link?

No. It is the local chapter that I believe operates independently of the national mission. Remember (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupp was involved with this program --> a bit odd that it is singular here but plural just a few words prior

Fixed. Remember (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her hobbies --> Delete. I don't think this has a place in an encyclopedia.

I rewrote it to take out hobbies and just state that she traveled extensively late in life. Remember (talk)

Source review:

There is quite a reliance on her own books. Interpreting WP:USEPRIMARY I think this okay through the clear signalling in the prose. A problem would have been using her book to support her claim to be the first women to join the bar. But no such statements are sourced through her own primary sources. So I think it's fine.

Ok. Good. Let me know if this becomes a problem.

the first source is now a dead link. See WP:DEADLINK about what to do.

I'm confused. The first source I found takes me to the internet archive. Which source are you referring to? Remember (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All it needed was an extra |url-status=dead. I just added it.

add author name to source #1 and #4

Done. Remember (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am mostly all done. Let me know if there are more things to fix. Otherwise I will work on the remaining issues and see what I can do. Remember (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. Looks like you only have that Winthrop paragraph to do. I have just one more minor thing:

the lead image needs alt text. If I interpret MOS:ALT correctly, I'd say in this case simply: alt=refer to caption

That's it. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Remember (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: Just checking to see if this is still on your radar. Nearly there I think. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Real life got too busy for me. I think I did everything. What still needs to be done? Remember (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my dust all. I deleted the new review page and moved this one in its place. The only content on the new review page was Edwininlondon's comment which I'm reproducing below. I hope that works for everyone! If not, let me know and we can do something else. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: Thank you for fixing this. Much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Remember: It looks like the system got confused when the article name changed: The GA review page did not change as well. Never mind. We simply continue here, and I will close the other review on Talk:Ruth Williams Cupp/GA1. I believe we are almost there. I made a few edits myself, I hope you don't mind. I completed a spot check of the sources and all checks out fine. The only thing left to do is to add the locations of publishers of books. You have done it once, for Raleigh, NC: IVY House Publishing Group, but the others need it too, including the Chepesiuks book. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the edits! I can add the locations of the publishers. Is that it? Remember (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place to find the locations of the publishers? I can't seem to find them on google or amazon. Remember (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat helped me out when Amazon failed. I added them all. We're done. This article now satisfies all criteria for Good Article. It was a pleasure working with you. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure working with you! Thank you for all your hard work!!!! Remember (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]