Talk:Katharine Coman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 12:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please reply individually under each of my comments and mark with  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. Catrìona (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

General

• I'm not entirely sure if this is covered Not required by the GA criteria, but when you are citing journal articles you don't specify which page in the article the citation is referencing. This is best practice to maximize verifiability.

since I am running short on time, I will not address this issue today. I will try to work on citing exact page numbers in the coming weeks. But for now,  Not done as not required for GA status.AnaSoc (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Doing...

 Done

• I did some reorganization to make it more like other biographical articles and for neutral section headings; let me know if you disagree with anything.

I like the reorganization. Thanks for your work. AnaSoc (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• In date ranges, there isn't consistency between n-dashes and hyphens. I believe n-dashes are preferred.

 Doing...AnaSoc (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 FixedAnaSoc (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Based on the ref formatting (when viewing the source, the refs are numbered, ie <ref name=":11" />) I'm guessing that you wrote this article in the visual editor. Although not required for the GA criteria, it's best practice to make sure all the refs have meaningful names to make it easier on editors and reviewers.

 Not done because not required for GA status, and I'm running out of time. Will try to get to this in the coming week.AnaSoc (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Might be worth mentioning in the text that Coman and Bates' relationship has been described as a committed lesbian couple. I have a pdf of the paper in case you can't access it.

 DoneAnaSoc (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• You shouldn't repeat items in a further reading that are already in the references. Instead, you should integrate the debate about the relationship into the text of the article, although briefly. Perhaps something like, "Bates and Coman have been described as a "committed lesbian couple", but the Falmouth Historical Society has argued that there is no evidence that they had a sexual relationship."

 Done deleted Further readings.AnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the article is getting close. You might consider expanding the lead somewhat with additional details from the career section . One other issue that I just noticed is the cits to find a grave, which is not considered a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources). You'll need to find a better source for the information. Also, I'm a bit concerned about undue weight for the illness and death section, which is almost as long as the section on her career. There is coverage in secondary sources, which is a good sign, but I would avoid primary sources for that section unless the information is repeated in secondary sources, to avoid giving undue weight.

cited secondary sources instead of find-a-grave for everything except names of siblings. Will look for secondary source for this information as well. Deleted Cedar Hill Cemetery as I cannot at the moment find a better citation than find-a-grave. Deleted some sentences about breast cancer and death, but kept most of the text because of the importance of the publication of Bates' work as the first breast cancer narrative. Thanks for your suggestions and comments.AnaSoc (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

reinserted the claim about cremation and burial, but kept the "need better source template." Added part of a poem by Bates that may indicate validity of the claim that Coman was cremated and buried at Cedar Hill. Still looking for a better source, though.AnaSoc (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

expanded the lead as suggested. Good ideas! Thanks.AnaSoc (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, it's looking much improved. I've done some copyediting to help it meet the "focus" criterion, and moved some interesting but less relevant info to footnotes, as well as removing findagrave. If you find a better source for that information, you can copy it from the revision history, but the article can't be passed as long as it contains sources considered to be unreliable. A few additional suggestions:

• The article states that she retired in 1913 but was not a professor emeritus until 1915, the year of her death. Typically professors become emeritus when they retire. Can you double check this?

 Done

• Coman writes that settlers were "economically superior" to other European and native groups. What does this mean exactly?

 Done

• She served in "leadership roles"—can you be more specific?

 Done

• "was instrumental in founding"—is it possible to be more specific about Coman's role?

 Done

• When mentioning individuals commenting on the subject for the first time, it's best to include full name and brief qualifications: for example According to Professor Thomas Paxton... or According to economic historian Thomas Paxton etc. instead of According to Paxton. Also see words to watch: it's preferable to avoid words like "claim" and "insist" unless there's some reason to believe that the person saying it is mistaken.

 Done and  Done

• Do we know who wrote the review in the SF Chronicle?

No, there was no author listed.AnaSoc (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work and suggestions! I did undo your edit about being awarded emeritus status. Emeritus then, as now, is not automatically awarded, but must be earned. I found a better source--the NYT--that placed the date in 1913.

I really like what you did with the notes! I'm still trying to find a reliable source for the cremation and burial. But for now, I'm find with find-a-grave going away. Thanks.

I will try to explain the "economic superior" phrase.

Thanks for the suggestion about introducing scholars/writers the first time.

No author listed for the SF Chronicle review.AnaSoc (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• In the Social activism section, you now have four citations in a row. It's best to keep to three, so recommend moving closer to the content they support or removing the least reliable one.

 DoneAnaSoc (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Not required, but it would be great if you could provide publication information for the books in the selected publications section, preferably using cite book like I did with the articles. Catrìona (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Lede

• She is celebrated as a female pioneer in the discipline of economics Avoid words like "celebrated". I recommend "She was a female pioneer..."

 DoneAnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Include her full date of birth and death (which are listed in Find a Grave)

 Not done but added info box as you suggestedAnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done, but cited a different source than Find a Grave per Talk aboveAnaSoc (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• long time companion Should be hyphenated (long-time companion), but it seems that "Boston marriage" is the more usual term for this.

 Done. Also added Wellesley marriage, cited source.AnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• For an article this long, you would benefit by having a longer lede and including more information from the body. For instance, other than saying she is an "activist", you don't include any information on her social activism.

 DoneAnaSoc (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not in the GA criteria, but I strongly suggest that you include an infobox, probably Template:Infobox person

 Done Good suggestion! It took me awhile to figure out how to do it, but now I know. Thanks.AnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Early life

• Upon her birth, Coman's father is quoted as saying that "he would show educators how a girl should be educated." I looked at the source, and this isn't a direct quote.

will fix by removing "quoted"AnaSoc (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 DoneAnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• used his ideas repeated awkward phrase, suggest rewriting

 DoneAnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any information about why she left and came back to the college?

Can you clarify this comment?AnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• attended the University of Michigan for two years, left college to teach in Ottawa, Illinois for two years, and then returned to university. Is there any information on why?

cannot find information about why she left U of MI, but will continue to search.AnaSoc (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wellesley College

• political economy class what is "political economy"?

Good question! I linked to the Wikipedia article.AnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 DoneAnaSoc (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Coman was described as radiant, brilliant, and charismatic, and that faculty and students alike were drawn to her probably best to put this in a quote

It's not a direct quote, but I did put the page number.AnaSoc (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 DoneAnaSoc (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Catrìona thanks for the suggestions! I am working on a couple of work-related deadlines, but as soon as I meet them (hopefully by Saturday), I will review your suggestions and make changes as necessary. Thanks for a careful read and for all you do.AnaSoc (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona (talk) I believe I have mined all of the sources I have for information about Katharine Coman. I read the Burgess book cover to cover and noted all of the references to Coman. Burgess was Bates' niece, and Lillian Faderman notes that Burgess omitted references that would have implicated her aunt in lesbianism. Note that the Burgess book was published in 1952, at the height of the Lavender Scare, so Burgess's action fits right in with that historical context. Thanks for your work on this review.AnaSoc (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona (talk What is the next step to upgrade to GA status? Now that you have done significant work on the article, can you still be the reviewer for GA status? How do we get the article off "hold" and back into the tank for review? Thanks for your work! You have been awesome to work with. AnaSoc (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Currently there are a few citation needed tags ; I removed a blog that did not appear to meet WP:SELF-PUBLISHED. I suggest you fix those. I am still somewhat concerned about the "described as brilliant" etc. statement mentioned above. I strongly suggest quoting the passage that this is based on. Another suggestion would be cleaning up the citations, although this may not be necessary to pass GA review. You can generate cite book from a Google Books or Worldcat link; cite journal can be generated with the DOI or stable JSTOR (or other) url. I have made a lot of copy edits to this page and it could certainly use another set of eyes, so when you've fixed those issues I'll change the status to "2ndopinion" and we can get another reviewer to look things over. I still haven't checked most of your references, but I will do so while we're waiting for the second reviewer. Catrìona (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the citation needed tags--two of the statements I simply deleted as the only source was the blog that you had deleted because it was self-published. One of them I cited the Chicago Tribune. I deleted the "charismatic" etc. and just said she was a popular teacher. My understanding about references is that any style guide can be used, as long as it is used consistently. I tried to use the style that was present when I first began work. But I'll take another look at the references to make sure they are consistent. Thanks again for your work on this article!AnaSoc (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Mostly looking good. I flagged a statement still needing a reference and specifically note the Wellesley College Archives reference, which needs a title to not be a bare url. Adding citation templates would not be inconsistent with the current style, but makes the references more resilient to future changes and, by including a url, easier to find. Anyway, I am going to change the status to 2ndopinion, noting for the next reviewer that I have not checked all refs, but have checked a significant percentage and did not find any issues. Catrìona (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'd be happy to provide a second opinion. Having looked through this review, I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking for a second opinion on. Is there some specific aspect? Or are you asking someone to look at the nomination in general?--Carabinieri (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Carabinieri: I think in general. AnaSoc expressed concern that, by heavily copyediting the article, I might be too involved to evaluate the article. I tend to agree with her, because I have been reviewing the article for some time and extensive changes have been made. Catrìona (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've started reviewing the article. Here are a few issues and questions:

• The link in the first footnote (umich.edu) appears to be broken.
• I haven't been able to figure out where the encyclopedia article cited in the third footnote (jrank.org) is from. What kind of source is this and why is it reliable?
• When citing a book or journal article, you need to give a page number. I know Catriona wrote that this is not required by the GA criteria, but I disagree. Verifiability is required for GA and a statement isn't really verifiable without a page number.
• "Upon her birth, Coman's father reportedly said that he would show educators how a girl should be educated" I'm not entirely sure what point this is making. Was her father saying that girls weren't getting the education they deserved? If so, in what way? Or is this meant more literally, in that he intended to use his daughter to demonstrate proper education for girls?
• "After graduating with her PhB, she joined the faculty at Wellesley College, a newly established private college for women." Wouldn't it make more sense to move this sentence to the next section?
• "Noting her talent for teaching, the president of the University of Michigan, James Burrill Angell, recommended Coman" I wasn't sure what this meant. Was this what led to her being hired by Wellesley? Or was this after her appointment?
• "Considered the first industrial history of the United States,[4] the book was reprinted nine times before 1915" Considered by whom? I think either this claim is clearly factually correct, then we don't need the "considered", or it's an opinion, but then it should be attributed to someone.
• "She died in a room the family had named Bohemia, as it looked out over the trees and gardens below" That seemed like a bit of a non-sequitur to me. Were those trees and gardens in some reminiscent of the region Bohemia? Or does this refer to the tree?

That's it for now. I've done some very light copyediting. Please make sure I don't mess anything up.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Carabinieri Thanks very much for the suggestions. I have been swamped at work these past few days, but I hope to soon be able to return to the article.AnaSoc (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hey all. How is he review going. Are we close to finishing it up? AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aircorn: It doesn't appear so. AnaSoc has not edited since November. @AnaSoc: Are you planning to return to this review? buidhe 19:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Buidhe, it's been six weeks since your ping, AnaSoc has still made no edits to the article since Carabinieri's light copyedit in September, just about six months without any action on their part, and still nothing at all on Wikipedia since November. Please close this review. If AnaSoc eventually returns, they can make the fixes and renominate. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset and Buidhe: Just noticing this was abandoned. It's possible I can look at the last round of comments in the next week. Could you leave it open until next Sunday? If I don't post here again by then, go ahead and close (no need to ping me). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Nevermind this -- just went ahead with it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Coming back to the second opinion / outstanding issues - March 2019

I haven't followed this review, but it looks like the outstanding parts are Carabinieri's comments in this last section. I'm coming in without a great familiarity with the subject/sources to try to save the nomination, since it looks so close to passing, so bear with me.

The link in the first footnote (umich.edu) appears to be broken.

Works for me. Created an archive link for good measure.

I haven't been able to figure out where the encyclopedia article cited in the third footnote (jrank.org) is from. What kind of source is this and why is it reliable?

Looks like an aggregator site. I replaced the citation with one to the actual book

When citing a book or journal article, you need to give a page number. I know Catriona wrote that this is not required by the GA criteria, but I disagree. Verifiability is required for GA and a statement isn't really verifiable without a page number.

I scanned for quotes and other kinds of claims for which a page number is required, and it looks like they're there. Requiring page numbers in all instances is covered at WP:GANOT. Something is still verifiable regardless of page number, after all -- it just saves time for the reader looking for that part of the work and therefore makes for an ideal citation. Given I don't have all of the sources here, this seems like an aspect of the review I'd push back against (to the extent it's not already addressed). If there's one or two particular citations that seem like they really need it, I can go hunting for them in particular, though.

"Upon her birth, Coman's father reportedly said that he would show educators how a girl should be educated" I'm not entirely sure what point this is making. Was her father saying that girls weren't getting the education they deserved? If so, in what way? Or is this meant more literally, in that he intended to use his daughter to demonstrate proper education for girls?

This does seem a little confusing. I've gone ahead and just removed this.

"After graduating with her PhB, she joined the faculty at Wellesley College, a newly established private college for women." Wouldn't it make more sense to move this sentence to the next section?

 Done

"Noting her talent for teaching, the president of the University of Michigan, James Burrill Angell, recommended Coman" I wasn't sure what this meant. Was this what led to her being hired by Wellesley? Or was this after her appointment?

I see in the source that she was recommended for the job at Wellesley by Angell. The line about being recruited by Freeman is less clear -- based on my quick scanning it seems like that might've referred to Bates (also Katharine). Regardless, it didn't seem essential, so copyedited it out.

"Considered the first industrial history of the United States,[4] the book was reprinted nine times before 1915" Considered by whom? I think either this claim is clearly factually correct, then we don't need the "considered", or it's an opinion, but then it should be attributed to someone.

I don't see any indication of controversy about this, so rewrote it as such and copyedited the line.

*"She died in a room the family had named Bohemia, as it looked out over the trees and gardens below" That seemed like a bit of a non-sequitur to me. Were those trees and gardens in some reminiscent of the region Bohemia? Or does this refer to the tree?

Removed this. There may be some deeper connection, but it doesn't seem essential.

Alright I guess I don't need a week after all. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Just going to ping past participants about the above one more time, since I know this lingered for a while. I think I've addressed all of the issues raised above. Would someone be willing to pass it or highlight any issues I missed? @BlueMoonset, Buidhe, Aircorn, and Carabinieri: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would wait for Buidhe to repsond. If they don't within a week or so ping me back and I will take responsibility for passing it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Pinging after a week as suggested -- doesn't look like Buidhe's edited since early February. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay passing. AIRcorn (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)