Talk:Marjorie Lynch

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that British-born Marjorie Lynch served as deputy administrator of the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration? Source: Stein, Alan J. (December 7, 2015). "Former Washington State Representative Marjorie Lynch is sworn in as Deputy Administrator of the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration on January 24, 1975". HistoryLink. Retrieved December 29, 2022.
  • Reviewed:

Created by Sammielh (talk). Self-nominated at 18:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC).

• New article (moved from draftspace), long enough. No obvious neutrality issues, all content has inline citations to reliable sources and Earwig returns no violations (false positive due to long organisation names and use of quotes). No QPQ required as this is the creator's fourth DYK. The images used in the article are correctly licensed. Thanks User:Sammielh - your suggested hook is fine, but I would also like to suggest the below alternative hook as I think the opposition to her nomination is quite interesting. ITBF (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that the Daughters of the American Revolution opposed Marjorie Lynch's nomination to a government post due to her birth in Britain?
    • I'm happy with ALT1, I agree that it is more interesting. Thanks @ITBF: Sammielh (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
      • ALT1 is gonna need a review, because I'm not sure that ALT0 is quite gonna make the cut theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
        • ALT1 is fully cited in article and fine. In this case, recommend using "Britain" instead of "United Kingdom". Striking ALT0. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marjorie Lynch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 01:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Lead

• Linked London
• Changed "American Army" to United States Army, as this is how it's referred to in Early life and should be consistent, also linked
• Linked Washington DC
• Lead is good, no issues. Summarises the body without excessive detail.

Early life

• Linked London
• Linked Paris
• Linked Christmas
• Source to text integrity for first two sentences of early life using ref [1] is good.
• Ditto for first and second sentence of paragraph two
• Linked US Army and changed to United States

Political career

• Source to text integrity for paraph one checks out for the use of ref [9]
• Ditto for [17], [20], [25].

General Comments

• I really struggled to find fault with this one. A few missing links, but this is great work. You certainly practice what you preach about attention to detail and text to source integrity Sammielh! Did not find a single spelling error, and prose is excellent. Learned a lot from you during your review of my work and vice versa. Appreciate it. Thanks! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.