Talk:Anna Harrison

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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

I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ealdgyth Checking in since it's been a week. I'm in no rush, but I want to make sure this didn't get lost or anything like that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasn't been lost - been involved in the ArbCom case. Looks like I'll be a bit more free this coming week. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:20, 19 March 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:

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• I'd suggest replacing the Appleton's Cyclopaedia ref to something more modern - although this is not required. Note that the Wikipedia Library has the American National Biography Online which will be much more current than Appleton's.
• Spotchecks:
  • "Anna lived as an army wife, moving with her husband wherever he was stationed. As their family grew, they decided to find a permanent home" is sourced to this source p. 153 which I'm afraid doesn't quite support the information given. The source says "The life Anna adopted was that of an army offier's wife. She traveled with her husband until her family became too large. The couple lived primarily in a substantial log cabin in North Bend during their marriage, but they did spend a few years in Vincennes when Harrison was governor of the Indiana Territory. There Anna managed to care for her large family, frequently without any help from her absent husband."
  • "Anna would spend much of her time in Indiana reading on political topics, seeking out whatever newspapers and journals she could find." is sourced to this source p. 120 which mostly supports the information but I do not think that the source's statement of "...Anna was extremely well read, and was particularly noted as an avid consumer of all the politcal newspapers and journals that she could get hold of while living at her frontier home in Indiana Territory. There, she also was afforded the opportunity of conversing with the many politicians and military leaders who visited her husband." really supports "Anna would spend much of her time in Indiana reading on political topics"
  • "The location of their wedding is disputed; some historians place it in the home of the presiding minister, Dr. Stephen Wood, while others place it in the home of Anna's father." is sourced to this source p. 54 which supports the information, but is really a too-close paraphrase of the source which states: "Some historians say that they were married in the log cabin of the presiding justice of the peace, Dr. Stephen Wood; others place the ceremony in Symmes's own house."
  • "Anna personally educated her children, and she eventually founded a school in North Bend. William was often away in the 1810s and 1820s, as he had a successful political career that took him to the United States Congress, the Ohio Senate, and the diplomatic mission to Colombia." is sourced to this source p. 55 which supports the information.
  • "She took a particular interest in the Civil War, taking an abolitionist stance and encouraging her grandsons to serve in the Union Army." is sourced to this source p. 107 which is only sorta supported by the source. The source says "She relied on Tyler and Polk to help her grandsons to receive military commissions. She opposed slavery and encouraged her grandsons in their military careers with the Union Army during the Civil War." The source says that the grandsons got commissions BEFORE the Civil War, and that Anna merely encouraged them in those careers during the Civil War. Nor does it particularly support the "She took a particular interest in the Civil War" part - the source says "Despite continued medical problems, Anna Harrison closely followed politcal and military developments after her husband's death and throughout the Civil War era." which does not really support a "took a particular interest in the Civil War"
  • "She also began a practice of inviting the church congregation to her home after morning service each Sunday." is sourced to [ this source pp. 75-77] which supports the information but is a bit close to the source which says "She also got into the habit of inviting the whole congregation of her beloved church in North Bend to dinner on Sundays right after the morning service and serving food raised on the Harrison farm."
  • "Anna was well-read and knowledgeable about politics, and she was able to participate in political conversations with her husband's guests. William declined to campaign on Sundays due to Anna's observance of the Sabbath." is sourced to this source pp. 142-144 which again is perhaps a bit too close to the source, which states "...Anna was well read—which reflected her childhood education—and well informed on the matters of the day, and she enjoyed conversations with the political figures who visited her husband at their home."
• I think we need to have a complete check of the article for close paraphrasing - it's clear that there may be other issues lurking in the text. I'm inclined to fail this nomination to allow for time for the nominator to closely check the text and fix the problems without any time pressure but I'm open to other solutions. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth, the paraphrasing is something I've recently been made aware of, and I intend to double check the articles where I've used these sources, but I've encountered two issues that are hindering progress there. First, I haven't quite figured out how to write these detailed biographical facts. There are only so many ways to say "she was well-read and could participate in political conversations". Second, I'm not sure whether the balance of secondary and tertiary sources might be an issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Let's try rephrasing one of the above. "The location of their wedding is disputed; some historians place it in the home of the presiding minister, Dr. Stephen Wood, while others place it in the home of Anna's father." could easily be "Two locations have been put forward for where the couple married - either at Anna's father's home or at the home of Stephen Wood, who performed the ceremony." The trick is to utterly rephrase by taking in the information - that there are two possible locations, and then putting that forward and not getting stuck on the order or phrasing of the source. You could also go with "The couple was married by Stephen Wood, but where is uncertain, with it occuring at either Wood's residence or at the home of Anna's father." Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth, this is a pretty short article and I've gotten quite familiar with these sources (mixed blessing I suppose), so it wasn't much trouble to check all of the citations. I've rewritten a bunch of sentences and moved citations around as needed. I'm hoping that this fixed the general issue, but I also want to make sure that this is something that I can consistently get right. My other worry is that Schneider & Schneider (2010), the source that shows up the most, appears to be a tertiary source. Is this something I should pay attention to? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  There are tertiary sources and then there are tertiary sources. Something like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is technically a tertiary source but the articles are authored by experts in the subject and are attributed to the author rather than some intern writing without attribution. So we rely on the ODNB for many articles on wikipedia. So the thing you need to decide is if Schneider & Schneider is a tertiary source like the ODNB or is it not written by subject matter experts? (As an aside, it will probably be Saturday before I can get back to this - small minor sorta-emergency has come up and I may not have much time this afternoon.) Ealdgyth (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• I apologize for not getting back to this quicker - things have been a bit wild this spring.
• I did a few more spot checks:
  • "She also worried about how she would perform as first lady, fearing that she would not be capable of the task or that she would not be well received by Washington society." is sourced to this source which says "She was concerned about her ability to be a satisfactory hostess - although she had proved able to entertain capably when necessary - and about her reception in Washington." which is ... frankly, still way too close to the source. A good paraphrase might have been "Worries about how she would be received in Washington as well her ability to handle the duties of being the presidential hostess also concerned her."
  • "Anna enjoyed reading on political topics while living there, seeking out whatever newspapers and journals she could find." (which is a rewrite of a previous concern) is sourced to this source ... still has issues. The source says "Anna was extremely well read, and was particularly noted as an avid consumer of all the politcal newspapers and journals that she could get hold of while living at her frontier home in Indiana Territory. There, she also was afforded the opportunity of conversing with the many politicians and military leaders who visited her husband." I don't think we can say that this source supports that "Anna enjoyed reading on political topics" ... it could support "Anna read extensively about political topics" but going from the fact that she read a lot about politics to stating that she "enjoyed reading on political topics" is a bit OR to me - for all we know she hated the topic and only read about politics to help her husband.
  • "Attacks on families by Native American soldiers was common in the region, and the home was built to be readily defensible so that the children could be hidden inside when necessary. A Methodist minister lived with the Harrisons in Grouseland. He was responsible for the children's spiritual education, and he guarded the house during attacks." is sourced to this source p. 55 which does not support all the information given - the source does not say that attacks were common - it just says "The family lived in what was still pioneer country subject to Indian attack. Anna Harrison often had to rush the children indoors while a Methodist minister who lodged with them stood guard with a shotgun." and (in a later paragraph not connected with the concerns about attacks) "entrusting their spiritual welfare to the Methodist circuit rider." We cannot assume that the circuit rider mentioned as being in charge of the spiritual welfare of the children is the same as the minister who lodged with them. Nor does "spiritual welfare" necessarily mean that he handled their spiritual education. Nor can we say that the lodger "guarded the house during attacks" ... the source really only supports that some sort of alarm was given and the minister guarded the house during these occasions - not that those occasions were actually attacks on the house. And the "the home was built to be readily defensible so that the children could be hidden inside when necessary" is SYNTH here - the house was built to be defensible - but we cannot draw the conclusion that it was built to be defensible to allow the children to be hidden inside.
  • "Her family had acquired considerable debts, and much of her pension was spent appeasing creditors." is sourced to this source p. 56 which says "The administrators of President Harrison's estate had a thankless task" and "Anna had to pay some of her husband's debts out of the pension voted her by Congress, a lump sum of $25,000, and she had to scrimp and borrow during her widowhood." which does not support "much of her pension was spent appeasing creditors"
  • "She had little time to develop a reputation, as her husband died before she arrived at the White House. As such, Harrison and her performance as first lady have not been the subject of significant scholarly analysis or debate. Historical analysis is further limited by the destruction of her personal papers during the fire at her log cabin. Presidential historians portray Harrison as a devoutly religious woman that was dedicated to her family. One subject of debate among historians is how much influence Harrison had over her husband, though recent historians have agreed that she generally had little say in her husband's career." is sourced to this source which mostly supports the information although I'm not sure I'd say that "recent historians have agreed that she generally had little say in her husband's career" ... the source gives Cleaves as saying that she "ruled the General" and that Anthony "makes it clear, in accordance with Holloway and Cleaves, that Anna's interest in politics did not translate into a desire to be a presidential wife" ... I don't think this really supports "little say in her husband's career". I think the source supports something like "Anna had no desire for her husband to be president" but I don't think it goes as a far as "little say in her husband's career" - since it doesn't address his earlier military and political career at all.
• In short, I'm still seeing issues with sourcing and paraphrasing here. I strongly suggest you go sentence by sentence through the article and make sure that sources are summarized and that they fully support the information they are attached to.
• Because of my tardiness in getting back to this, I'm not going to fail the article right this moment, but frankly, it probably needs a full top to bottom recheck. And yes, that's a lot of work. I suggest you spend a bit of time doing that and let me know when you're ready for me to recheck. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I checked every sentence for close paraphrasing after the initial review, and I'm willing to do so again for original research. But I'm going to quibble for a moment about close paraphrasing. Regarding your first point, I believe that this interpretation of close paraphrasing goes beyond what constitutes plagiarism and isn't useful. Looking at your example, your paraphrase is actually closer in wording to the original than mine. The main difference is that you switched the order so Harrison is no longer the subject of the sentence, which is not how I would want to present the information in a biographical article.

  Here and elsewhere in the article, creative expressions used by the authors are avoided as are thesaurus-equivalent expressions, and the prose isn't just copied over with some words replaced or rearranged. Reading WT:Close paraphrasing and its archives, I see there are some philosophical differences on where the line should be drawn, but I think that requiring deviation from a simple description of facts (or even worse, expecting an editor to use clunky and forced wording or structure) goes beyond what should be evaluated here, especially if anything that isn't explicitly stated by the source is original research. It seems that these discrepancies are why a proposal to make WP:CLOP into a guideline didn't pass. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I generally try to err on the side of avoiding any sign of it - but I do understand that it's hard to paraphrase basic facts (which is why I don't spot check statements like "She died at her home on such-and-such-a-date." as those are going to be difficult to paraphrase. The paraphrasing was improved, and that's less of a concern than the sourcing issues - and I do know it's difficult to work with subjects that have less-than-copious amounts of sources, like Anna. It's a lot easier to summarize and paraphrase a couple of pages of information on one incident than it is to take the important bits from summary-style source like the ones you're using here - so I do have some sympathies. Unfortunately, Doug Caldwell has made everyone concentrate on paraphrasing as well as sourcing, so I'm not going to do the article any favors if I pass it without giving it a hard look at paraphrasing and sourcing. Easier to get it right during the review than to have it come back and bite both of us later, leaving aside the fact that we should be producing the best possible articles we can. Please do let me know when you've checked the sourcing again and feel that it can stand up to scrutiny. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth I gave the article another once over. I changed a few phrases to make sure they complied with the source, including all of the points about OR that you raised. And I definitely get where you're coming from about source checks; I think I've been one of the louder advocates at WT:GAN for increased scrutiny in that area. It's more just that paraphrasing is a spectrum where the boundaries are subjective, which is one of those unsolveable issues that goes well beyond one review or one subject area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Status query

Ealdgyth, Thebiguglyalien, where does this review stand? The last edits here and to the article were on May 4. It would be great to get this moving again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't have the time to finish this. Normally spring is not that busy for me but this year I've been swamped since March and it doesn't look like its going to change any time soon. If someone else could pick this up, it'd be great. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I'll be able to do a full-fledged review, but from a glance, this looks incomplete without naming all of her kids or sibling(s). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

New reviewer

Thebiguglyalien, I'll take this on as a new reviewer as part of the August 2023 GAN Backlog Drive. Obviously my first task will be to go through the comments above carefully and do some fresh spotchecks. Mujinga (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (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

Spotchecks

Reviewing old spotchecks

• First round above all now ok
• Second round above all now ok

New spotchecks

• (Also earwig check ok)
• On this version:
• A/ article says:To protect Anna, he disguised himself as a British soldier and carried her to Long Island to stay with her maternal grandparents.[2]: 100  One anecdote describes him carrying a second bag holding turnips, claiming to be delivering them to the British commander.[1]: 54

  source says:One tale tells that when the British were threatening Morristown, New Jersey, he dressed as a Redcoat, stuffed the four-year-old Anna into one saddlebag and turnips into the other, told British sentries that he was delivering the turnips to the supreme British commander and transported her safely to the Tuthill's home. - this still has the whiff of closeparaphrasing ("delivering them to the British commander" vs "delivering the turnips to the supreme British commander") and in addition I don't think the wikiversion summarises the text well, since it wasn't clear to me from the wikitext that he was going by horse. I'm not sure if we need an anecdote which is unlikely to be true in an encyclopedia, but if we do, it would be better to convey the information in a different way, for example: "Her father was rumoured to have taken Harrison through enemy lines to the safety of her grandparents, by smuggling her in a saddlebag and showing British soldiers turnips in the other bag"

  I also notice that you are referring to her here and elsewhere chiefly by her first name (ie Anna). As previously discussed at Talk:Helen Herron Taft/GA1, I do feel that it is better to refer to women by their surname per the MOS guidance

• B/ article says:She had little time to develop a reputation, as her husband died before she arrived at the White House. As such, Harrison and her performance as first lady have not been the subject of significant scholarly analysis or debate. Historical analysis is further limited by the destruction of her personal papers during the fire at her log cabin. Presidential historians portray Harrison as a devoutly religious woman that was dedicated to her family. A subject of debate among historians is how much influence Harrison had over her husband; earlier presidential historians such as Laura Carter Holloway and Freeman Cleaves argued that she had a strong command over her husband and his career, but more recent historians have contested this.[6]

  (some of) the relevant text in the source says:

  Anna Harrison was the first first lady whose husband died while in office

  there is very little sustained analysis of Anna Harrison in the scholarly literature. Nor is there much in the way of historiographical debate.

  Holloway presents a brief sketch of Anna Harrison’s life and portrays her as an intensely religious woman devoted to her husband and children

  In light of her desire to keep her husband away from the presidency, Anna obviously did not enjoy all that much influence over his career. Unfortunately, fuller analysis of this topic is probably impossible. Anna’s personal papers were destroyed when the home in North Bend burned to the ground in 1855.

  Whilst some of the wikitext is a good summary, I'm still seeing the problems that Ealdgyth was pointing to above, for example:

  "portrays her as an intensely religious woman devoted to her husband and children" versus "portray Harrison as a devoutly religious woman that was dedicated to her family"

  "subject of significant scholarly analysis or debate" versus "very little sustained analysis of Anna Harrison in the scholarly literature. Nor is there much in the way of historiographical debate"

• C/ In the 1982 Siena College Research Institute asking historians to assess American first ladies, Harrison was included. The first ladies survey, which has been conducted periodically since, ranks first ladies according to a cumulative score on the independent criteria of their background, value to the country, intelligence, courage, accomplishments, integrity, leadership, being their own women, public image, and value to the president. In the 1982 survey, out of 42 first ladies and acting first ladies, Harrison was assessed as the 23rd most highly regarded among historians. Due to the brevity of her time as First Lady, Harrison has been excluded from subsequent iterations of the survey.[11]

  (Some of) the relevant text is:

  Using feedback from the first survey, the survey directors decided this information made the survey confusing, and so decided only to include actual spouses of presidents, and to exclude Mrs. Harrison, who did not have the opportunity to fulfill the role.

  On a scale of one to five, five being excellent, in ten separate categories.Background / Integrity / Value to the country / Leadership / Intelligence / Being her own woman / Courage / Public image / Accomplishments / Value to the President

  "In the 1982 Siena College Research Institute asking historians to assess American first ladies" - missing a word here? Otherwise ok

Quickfail

So I did three spotchecks and in two (A and B) identified lingering issues with close paraphrasing therefore I'm going to quickfail this article under criteria 2 and 5. If I'm coming to this article as a second reviewer I'd expect it to be squeaky clean but I'm also seeing other issues which need fixing, mentioned above. It seems that when the article was first written, the style was not suited to wikipedia and therefore a total rewrite would be the best way to escape the close paraphrasing and to improve it by what you now know about what a GA requires. The closeparaphrasing issue was pointed out by Ealdgyth and in some cases you simply removed the sentence, which of course removed the close paraphrasing in that case but not across the article more broadly. I can imagine this is all annoying to hear, and it is of course to some extent debatable, but I'm the second reviewer and I'm repeating the concerns of the first reviewer. I'm sure this could be a another First Lady GA in time, but it does need rewriting. Sorry it took so long for the second review to come! Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anna Harrison/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dugan Murphy (talk · contribs) 00:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm reading through the article now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm done with my review and it's a pass. Well done, Thebiguglyalien! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Though I made a bunch of edits myself during my review, I think this nomination was already strong. Thank you for improving coverage of an often-overlooked historical figure!

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There were a few minor 1a issues with the text that I went ahead and fixed myself because they all looked like straightforward fixes. Do look over those changes to make sure I didn't cause anything to be inaccurate as a result. Per 1b, I also made a small edit to the lead to make it better reflect the body. Having made those few small changes myself, I think the text reads well and follows the MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Having made 3 edits to 3 citations, I don't see any further 2a issues with the citations. All references are to books that are held at university libraries, one reliable news source, and one reliable research institute. Citations are located in-line throughout. None of the sources are primary and so nothing appears to be original research. Earwig found no likely plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   If this was FAC, I would prod more on tracking down more sources, but for GAN, this article appears to sufficiently cover the full length of Harrison's life and historiography concerning it. The prose covers everything without dwelling on any moments in her life in undue detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There was one minor change I made to the prose in the spirit of maintaining a neutral POV, but I think it was already doing a great job in this regard.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   This article has experienced very little editing in the 5 months since the nomination, and none of that is anything like an edit war.

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):

   The portrait had an improper copyright tag, so I went ahead and swapped that out. The photo's copyright tag looks appropriate. One of the two images had no caption, so I added one.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   After making a bunch of minor edits myself to assure compliance with the 6 criteria, I don't see any other issues to keep this nomination from passing.