Talk:Sally Jewell

Comment

She was picked because no ex-governor of a western state would accept the job. This is notable. Bamler2 (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to back up that claim, and we'll include it. Otherwise, it sounds like your speculation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Marriage

"Jewell is married to Warren, also an engineer." This looks amateurish, to say the least. The entry should be along the lines of, "In [date of marriage] she married Warren Jewell, also an engineer." Orthotox (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I am not aware of info concerning her marriage date, I have re-wrote the sentence you quoted. --TommyBoy (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of Mt McKinley to Denali / Broken Link

Obama is being popularly attributed as renaming Mt McKinley in Alaska, but it was actually Sally who renamed it, according to this Department of Interior document.. Also, the final external link (to National Journal) is broken (and incidentally has a clever 404 message). Wiki-whiner (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sally Jewell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130709172013/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-obama-interior-nominationbre9150lj-20130206,0,5853356,full.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-obama-interior-nominationbre9150lj-20130206,0,5853356,full.story
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130207000640/http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Biographical-information-for-Sally-Jewell-4256684.php to http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Biographical-information-for-Sally-Jewell-4256684.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible sources

This largely repeats what other sources used in the article already say, but it might be useful in the future. Knope7 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Successor

I'm hoping we can reach some sort of consensus on how to include Jewell's successor at Interior. The last name added to the info box was Rep. Ryan Zinke. According to the politico article linked on Zinke's article, "The sources said Zinke has yet to accept and has given no indication as to which way he is leaning." [1] Moreover, I know successors are being added to the pages of several cabinet members, but given that cabinet members must be confirmed, I think it is premature for a few reasons. 1) The Senate could reject the nominee, 2) the nominee could withdraw, and 3) there could be a time gap between the resignation of the current cabinet member and the next president's appointed nominee with an someone else leading the agency in the interim. I think based on the Politico source from today, Zinke clearly should not yet be added as Jewell's successor, but I also think we should leave the field blank until it is clear a nominee will actually succeed Jewell. Knope7 (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fair. I only updated it to reflect Zinke's name as it had previously stated Cathy McMorris Rodgers which was a) much more speculative than Zinke and b) no longer accurate. I don't think there would be stories about Zinke being made an offer if he wasn't going to accept (though who knows with this transition team). However, I do generally agree that until they are confirmed, it is perhaps premature to list them as successors (though one could argue that confirmation is very likely, especially for less controversial cabinet positions). I simply defaulted to replacing the old, incorrect information with new information (which, by the way, I should have cited) that still, as you point out, has a degree of speculativeness to it.Nkrosse (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. That's totally understandable. McMorris Rodgers was added multiple times and I didn't want an edit war so I didn't keep removing it. I probably should have been more vigilant about making sure that was more than speculation. I believe 3 of Obama's nominees withdrew before their hearings because of various issues being raised after Obama announced them, which is one of the reasons I'd rather be cautious. As you say, there are probably some nominees that won't be controversial, but I think there's little to be gained from adding the name of the successors to the articles for the current cabinet secretaries so early. It would be nice if there were an established, clear rule. Maybe there is one, but the relevant project pages don't appear to be too active. I'll go along with whatever consensus is about when to add the successor. It sounds like we agree that in this particular case better not to add Zinke yet. Knope7 (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This discussion as to when to add successors has now come up in multiple places, including Barack Obama's talk page and the talk page of templates. I see no reason to add the successor to the article of the current cabinet member until their successor takes office. If you disagree, kindly discuss it here rather than editing the article. Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2017 (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:Sally Jewell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 00:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one, expect it finished by maybe friday. My first concern is that it's a little short, I see that it's a short topic, but I want you aware. [dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Sally_Jewell#view:0.1.0.1.1.1 Found this from checklinks.] Copyvio not found in any degree except this sentence. " She graduated from the University of Washington in 1978 with a degree in mechanical engineering". JerrySa1 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review! I have tried to alter the the sentence mentioned above to address your concern. Knope7 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A note about stability, based upon my research of similar pages and consideration of relevant policies, I took the position that it is best not to add the successor to the infobox until the successor takes office. That was caused some revisions from editors. I have tried to reach out to everyone who edited the page and have left notes on the talk page. The issue will be moot in less than a week, but I wanted to explain as stability is a concern. Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Knope7:, Sorry for not responding these days, I'm busy with tests and such, so I'll finish Saturday. I'll report back Friday, when you'll hear from me again, but there is still the issue of dead links.JerrySa1 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No apology needed. When you have a chance, can you clarify what you mean by the issue of dead links? I see one dead link for a sentence which is also cited to another source. If you would like, I can just remove current reference 20 (Newsmeat). I haven't seen other deadlinks although I will take a look if you point them out. Knope7 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Knope7: Yes, that's fine, I think I have enough time to finish the review, I see it fitting to finish it before the president she was under leaves.

Links

• Your suggestion is fine  Done Knope7 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Ref. 3 and 5 are duplicates  Done Knope7 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Ref. 10 has an existing internet link  Done Knope7 (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• 16 is dead I see 2 links for reference 16, the first is to archive.org and the second is to the original webpage. Both appear to be working for me. Knope7 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Knope7:, Lucky I got on this page just now, there is still the Miscellaneous section. JerrySa1 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• "first planning to become a dental hygienist, then switching to pre-dental at the encouragement of a roommate." Source needed.

Source is ref 7, the same as the next sentence. The citation is actually hidden and visible in edit or edit source mode. My reading of WP:REPCITE says where consecutive sentences cite to the same source, only the last sentence needs the citation. Knope7 (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• "She worked in banking for twenty years, staying with Security Pacific, which acquired Rainier Bank, until 1992" Probably just me, but it sounds clunky

I broke the sentence up to make it easier to read. Please let me know if need further revision. Knope7 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• In 2005 she succeeded" should be "In 2005, she succeeded"

 Done Knope7 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• In 1996 Jewell..." see above (a couple others in article.)

I think I got them all  Done Knope7 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Sally Margaret Roffey was born..." Sally is a nickname. JerrySa1 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Knope7 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (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):

   see Mis. section

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   2a:see links section

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is nothing wrong here

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   no peacock terms and the like

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   You're right on stability

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images used appropriately and can be used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Yes, I'm passing this article. Congratulations, User:Knope7. JerrySa1 (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sally Jewell. 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/20130201134808/http://www.washington.edu/regents/officers/sally-jewell to http://www.washington.edu/regents/officers/sally-jewell

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)