Talk:Anne Dallas Dudley/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is nifty little article, but it still has some work to do with respect to the good article criteria.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The book citations need publisher, year, ISBN if exists; watch "pp" for single page; can the newspapers be linked to?
I've added publisher, year, and ISBN where I could find them, and fixed the "pp". Unfortunately, the newspaper articles are not on the web, I had to dig those up at the library. Kaldari (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting linking to the newspaper articles, but to the newspapers themselves (e.g. The Tennessean, Nashville Banner). Wasted Time R (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not a fan of linking to newspaper wikipedia articles from citations. I think it's less confusing for the reader if only actual sources are linked from the citations. Kaldari (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from the opposite school (I typed in 'Nashville Banner' because I wasn't familiar with it; a link would have been easier), but since there are many different citation styles active in WP, I'll defer to your preference. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See comments below
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
No other editors, no problems :-)
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images and captions are excellent
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Some comments on the coverage, in no particular order:

~~Did she had a middle name at birth?~~
- I have not been able to find one in any sources if she had one. The only source I haven't consulted are census records, but I don't have any easy way to access those.
  - OK.
    - Found it. Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good work. But I think you should add a cite to the census record that you found it in (per your edit summary comment).
        Done. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~What years were her children born in? It's bounded by the ages in that photo, but it would still be good to have specifics.~~
- I could only find a birth year for Guilford Dudley, Jr. (1907) and I was afraid it would be awkward to list just one. What's your opinion?
  - In similar situations I've listed the information that I could find, even if it isn't uniform. Seeing the discrepancy might spur someone else on to do further research.
    - I went on a field trip to the cemetery. It looks like Trevania was born in 1905 and Jr was born in 1907. The headstone for Ida, who died in infancy, doesn't have any years on it though. I've added the years for Trevania and Jr to the article. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can redlinks be added to encourage article formation about some of the entities mentioned here, such as National Suffrage Convention or any of the other women involved? (I'm more a fan of redlinks than the average WP editor, these days at least.)
- I added redlinks for Tennessee Woman's Suffrage Memorial and Tennessee Equal Suffrage Association. The National Suffrage Convention would probably best be discussed within the History of women's suffrage in the United States article or perhaps the National Woman's Suffrage Association article, but since neither of those currently mention it, I'm not sure a link would be appropriate.
  - Makes sense.
~~"a later measure ... was eventually passed by the state legislature" — what year was "eventually"?~~
- 1919. I've added the year. I probably avoided putting it in before since I didn't want to mention 1919 and then jump back to 1917 in the next sentence. What do you think? Should I include the year, leave it off, or ax the sentence completely?
  - I think you should include the year (isn't there yet). You can keep in 'eventually', which will clue the reader that you're departing the timeline for this one piece of information.
~~The footnote 9 link isn't working for me.~~
- I've added an archive url and date since the original site seems to have died.
  - OK, works for me now.
The article makes a sudden leap from 1920 to 1955. Indeed, when I first read the words "Dudley died unexpectedly", I was expecting it to be 1924 or something. What was she doing during those three and a half decades? Did she remain involved in the women's movement, or in politics in general, or did she retreat from all of it? Did she miss her previous years of political activity?
- I wasn't able to find much about this period as she seems to have disappeared from politics and gone back to a more private life. I'll see if I can dig up some more though.
  - I added some more info on her later years and tried to make the transition smoother. Kaldari (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much better. I like that genteel-sounding "Association for the Preservation of Tennessee Antiquities" :-)
This entry at the National Women's Hall of Fame site has some interesting aspects to her life that the article doesn't, including her being "a woman of elegance and high social standing", details on her suffrage activities, and cool final quote. I presume it qualifies as a WP:RS, and could be used in the article.
- You're right, I should mention something about her high social standing. Not quite sure how to work it in though. Let me know if you have any suggestions. I'll check out the quote and other info as well.
  - I'd retitle 'Early life' to be 'Early life and family' and work it in there.
    - I've implemented a few of these suggestions. I found the full version of the quote you mentioned and added it to the article. I'm going to work on tracking down the original source of the quote so I can add the year and a better citation. I also changed the "Early life" header to "Early life and family" and added a bit of info about her distinguished ancestry (including her commodore grandfather and Vice President great-uncle). I still think the article needs more info about her high social standing, however, and how this influenced her political activities. Kaldari (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be relying largely on Tennessee sources. In addition to limiting information, this may give the reader the impression that subject was only of local importance. This Google Books search shows a number of other possible sources to look at, many of which are visible online via limited preview. Have you looked at these?
- The impression that she was mostly of local importance within Tennessee is pretty much accurate. She is mentioned in some books about the national women's suffrage movement, however, so I'll try to dig some up.
  - The only non-Tennessee source I've been able to find so far that has significant discussion of Dudley is Ordinary Women, Extraordinary Lives. I've added it into the article in a couple places. Most of the other non-local sources from Google Books only mention Dudley briefly. Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Per this State of Tennessee page, there's a historical marker dedicated to her in Nashville. That might be mentioned.~~
- Added it.
  - OK. Good work, I'll stay watching. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any questions or objections on my comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One new comment. The sentences "Dudley was born in ..." and "Dudley was educated at ..." are both jarring to me, since she wasn't Dudley yet. I know there are two schools of thought on this, but I've always preferred to use the unmarried name (or duck it in places with "Anne ..." or "She ...") until marriage or when the name changes. (This may be due to my having worked a lot on articles like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Reagan, where it's more significant.) But if you feel strongly about the present form, that's okay. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried fixing it as best I could. Hope it sounds better to you now. The guidelines are a bit confusing on this. Kaldari (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead section since it seemed a bit too short. Please look over it and let me know if any of it needs to be revised. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article looks good now, and I'm passing the GA. Excellent job, and it's been great to deal with a quiet article and a rational editor :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]