Talk:Jennie Anderson Froiseth
 | Jennie Anderson Froiseth has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 13, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Jennie Anderson Froiseth appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 June 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Edits
editI just added this page, if there's anything inaccurate let me know. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice job. You wrote that she "worked with AAUW" but their page AAUW seems to emphasize that only college alumnae could join. Was she actually a member? She was clearly intellectual, but did she ever graduate college? Martindo (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jennie Anderson Froiseth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604222938/http://sarahdafthome.org/history to http://www.sarahdafthome.org/history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Jennie Anderson Froiseth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
All of my suggestions are open to discussion. Once completed, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- These are my edits. Please review for accuracy.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- no concern
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- The article claims Utah gave women the right to vote on "February 12, 1870," but the cited source says 1896. Am I overlooking something?
- Her birthdate isn't cited.
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- no concern. AGF for the non-print sources
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- I am not overly familiar with the subject, but nothing obvious has been omitted.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Is the single-sentence paragraph about the Edmunds–Tucker Act needed for this article? Was Froiseth directly connected to it somehow?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- no concern
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- no concern
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- no concern.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This looks pretty thorough, but there are a couple issues that need to be addressed prior to passing. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Argento Surfer, thank you for reviewing this article! Following up with the issues you addressed.
- I've checked the date for suffrage and it was February 10, 1869. Thank you for catching this.
- A source for her birth and death date has been added.
- I do feel the Edmund-Tucker sentence is useful because it follows up on the conclusion of what Anderson was working towards.
Any other issues just let me know.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied. Happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)