Jump to content

Talk:Frances Spatz Leighton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Yoninah (talk00:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Definitely other alts possible

Created by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • - My internet is running slow today, so an earwig check isn't really an option, but I've worked with this nominator before and am confident that close paraphrasing is not an issue. Meets the general DYK criteria, such as reliable sources, cited, age, length, etc. However, I do have one issue here: the nickname is supported inline, but the reason for the nickname is not directly addressed in the article. Tweak this, and it'll be good to go. Hog Farm Bacon 03:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but am trying to figure out how she got from "Frances Ornstein" to "Frances Spatz Leighton". This article could use a Personal Life section. You're quoting a source that says her husband was a Senate staffer, but the LA Times source names a husband as retired Air Force Col. Kendall King Hoyt. Where did she get all her names? Additionally, IMDb is saying she was born in 1920; can you find a reliable source for that? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Yoninah her personal life is remarkably lacking and here's why: I looked into who the supposed Kendall King Hoyt was, and I don't know where the Times got their info from, but there's no mention of that in any other source- in fact, a Kendall King Hoyt married someone else in 1930. this Chicago Tribune article mentions Leighton and Hoyt together, but not that they are married-- wouldn't they have seen fit to include a mention if they were? There's similar sourcing to the Chicago Tribune article in a couple other places. I suspect that she was married twice, since we know the first time was six years and the second time presumably to Hoyt, but I've had no luck finding it-- in large part because one of her most famous books is I married a Psychiatrist, filling all the search results. Her names are a bit of a mystery to me, given that the only source that even puts "Frances Ornstein" and "leighton" together is the LA obit. These are question's I've been completely unable to answer.
I suspect IMDB pulled the 1920 birth from the LA times obit (2007 - 87), but that isn't really a good way of ascertaining birth dates- I've found no source relating to it. It's been remarkably frustrating for me-- but then again, I guess it's nice to find a woman whose notability is completely independent from any man. I've added a mention of Hoyt to the article, but I'm unable to specify any further, unfortunately. If DYK doesn't allow articles with an incomplete part of the picture, oh well. I suppose this may be the end of the road. Cheers and happy holidays, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Leighton"?

[edit]

The article says her birth name was Ornstein and she married "a staffer for Earle Clements" and a man surnamed Hoyt. Was this anonymous staffer named Leighton? Why is he nameless in the article? If not, why was she using the name "Leighton"? Was it a pseudonym? I did try to check the references but the two relevant ones seem to

  1. Require an account I don't have
  2. Sit behind a paywall.

IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, presumably he was, but the sources don’t specify. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Frances Spatz Leighton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 10:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Ref 1 and 3 uses FamilySearch, a genealogical site which appears to accept user contributions. The citations should be replaced or removed.
  • While hosted on a site that also accepts user contributions, the records being cited are government records that are not edited by users and we can confirm with secondary sources that they're what we want, s I think they are acceptible.
Alright but if there are secondary sources available for the same information, why not use them? Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that we know enough information that we can definitely the primary source is about the right leighton, and only use the primary source for a minor detail. For example, based on secondary sources we know leighton was born September 1919 and married Kendall King Hoyt, the marriage certificate is used to specify her birth to September 4. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full name in the lead, "Frances Spatz Ornstein Leighton" does not appear to be used by any of the sources. She is just referred to as Frances Spatz Leighton and Ornstein is her surname at birth. I couldn't find anything in the sources used where it says how she got "Saptz Leighton" so I would suggest using "born Frances Ornstein" in parenthesis as opposed to using "née".
  • Done I think
I meant using "born" instead of "née" but anyways its not a big deal. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
changed Eddie891 Talk Work 15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a bit ambiguous if she is being referred to as a writer or ghostwriter. She is also referred to as a journalist, so I would suggest re-writing the first line to "... was an American author, ghostwriter and journalist" and dropping the "best known for" part.
  • Sure
  • "After publishing several successful books, she became a very popular ghostwriter." The "very" should be removed and the line does not directly correspond with the body of the article or the sources. I think something like "She became popular for ghostwriting several memoirs and accounts of Washington D. C. life" would be more accurate going by what's verifiable, it could also be presented as the second line of the article.
  • revised
Your revision looks even better. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider replacing "... was approached "daily" ..." with "was being frequently approached".
  • done
  • There should be a comma after "Around the same time".
  • added
  • In "then-First Lady of the United States Jacqueline Kennedy", the "then" seems unnecessary as the person with the title is already mentioned by name so I would suggest replacing it with "the" and adding a comma between Jacqueline and States. The line could also be moved to come after the line "Leighton worked with Parks to write My Thirty Years Backstairs at the White House (1961) about her experiences working at the White House and as a child while her mother was."
  • sure
  • Are you sure the two redlinks in the article are notable and should have their own articles?
  • Removed the psychiatrist, kept metro sunday group because it is wanting of a redirect or article
I had missed one, there's also one about John Szostak, what do you think about this one? I can't find anything about him other than the book. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the bibliography partial? The Los Angeles Times obituary itself mentions a number of books with a brief description of them which are not mentioned in the article at all.
  • Because there's no complete biography anywhere that I've been able to find, sources just say "over 30". The only particularly relevant book I'm aware of not including was the pat nixon cookbook which is because worldcat has no results for it
Ok but regarding the Pat Nixon Cookbook, I think it can still be included without an identifier. Also the memoir June Allyson is missing from the bibliography. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added June Allyson, I disagree about Pat Nixon, if it doesn't even have an OCLC that means it's essentially not held in any libraries and doesn't really merit inclusion in a selected bibliography Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, also in the same vein I think the section should be renamed to "Selected bibliography" instead of partial. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]
  1. Comprehension: The comprehension is good.
  2. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is clear. concise and understandable. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The article is mostly compliant with the manual of style. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiability: The article is mostly verifiable.
  4. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The article has a list of references and in-line citations for all material in the body. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Some clarification needed. Neutral Neutral
    (c) (original research) No original research exists in the article. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No plagiarism or copyright violations found. Pass Pass
  5. Comprehensiveness: The article is adequate in its coverage.
  6. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Some clarification needed. Neutral Neutral
    (b) (focused) The article remains on topic without unnecessary deviations. Pass Pass
  7. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
  8. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    No neutrality issues were found. Pass Pass
  9. Stability: The article is stable.
  10. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    No ongoing edit warring or content dispute exists. Pass Pass
  11. Illustration: The article has good illustration.
  12. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The image used is tagged and has a valid fair use rationale. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Use is suitable. Pass Pass