Talk:Eugenia Washington/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll conduct this review over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I'd normally oppose this level of ancestry in a biography, but it seems particularly appropriate here.
- As you can see, Ms. Washington has a distinguished pedigree, which lends to her relevance. I normally don't expound upon someone's relations as I have done here, but it seemed appropriate to provide context for her drive to create such organizations like DAR. -- Caponer (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...William Temple Washington, received his education at..." is a little awkward. Maybe "was educated at" would be better?
- Done! -- Caponer (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post Office jobs were often distributed as political patronage in those days. Is there anything in your sources about how she got the job?
- The sources do not say how she got the job, but they do link her lineage and heritage to her acquiring the position. I will continue to search for additional sources in the meantime, but for now, I cannot find something more specific in my existing literature review. Thank you for the suggestion, though! -- Caponer (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's not in the sources, don't worry about it. I've just written enough Gilded Age politics articles to know that patronage jobs often have a story behind them. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your citations don't link properly to the full cite below.
- I've corrected this issue. It looks like I was co-mingling author and last/first designations in the cite book reference templates. All the citations now link. Thank you for the catch. -- Caponer (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - All look fine, except for one: it doesn't appear you use the Hetzel source in the text, but it's listed in the bibliography. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coemgenus, thank you again for the catch! I've added the Hetzel source to the text. -- Caponer (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus, thank you tremendously for your review of this article. Please let me know if you have any outstanding comments, questions, or concerns. Your time spent reviewing this is much appreciated, and I thank you again for your guidance and patience throughout this process. -- Caponer (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Caponer: After a second reading, everything here looks good to go except that one detail of the Hetzel source that I mentioned above. Thanks for writing this, it was an enjoyable read. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coemgenus, thank you again for taking on this review. It is a great honor and privilege to have you review my work! -- Caponer (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - All right, good to go. It's been nice working with you on this. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Coemgenus, your review has been much appreciated and I look forward to working with you again soon! -- Caponer (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]