This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles
@MelissaThacker:, thanks for your work on this article. My impression from this brief look is that the source material is rather sparse, but that a solid job has been incorporating it. I believe this is not far from GA status, but a few notes follow.
There is some flowery language in the article that is reminescent of an obituary or similar. Many of these should simply be pruned; in other cases you may wish to attribute a brief segment to a source inline. Examples include "foremost silhouette illustrator" (who considered her this?) "perhaps most well-known" (by who?) "well known for finding new artistic talent", "noted artists", "memorable illustrations", etc. This may be the biggest barrier to GA status; encyclopedia articles are generally required to be in plainer language. " recognition of 32 years of selfless devotion" should almost certainly be quoted.
The number of her illustrations listed is excessive, I'm sorry to say. While I can appreciate that an aficionado would like a complete list, the general reader isn't interested, and it falls foul of WP:NOTCV and WP:NOTDIR, especially when you are relying on the primary sources rather than a bibliography of sorts. I suggest trimming heavily, and possibly adding a summary.
The lead is a little brief. If she was known for her work with the girl scouts, this work should be summarized in a sentence or two.
It strikes me as odd that a lot of material that I would consider part of her career is in different sections. I would suggest subsections within "career" or retitling the latter as "illustration career", but this is largely a matter of editorial discretion.
I have tagged one unsourced statement. Essentially everything in the article needs to be cited.
Finally, if the book listed in further reading has content about this person, I strongly recommend using it. The material as it stands is perhaps just sufficient to meet the "broad in its coverage" criterion, but a little more would seal the deal.
