Talk:Joan Ganz Cooney/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 00:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Since I haven't been actively involved in editing this article for a few years, I don't think it would be a COI for me to review it. I'll take a thorough look tonight, but it looks solid from first glance. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zan. Sorry I haven't been able to address your comments before now.

So, I've been reviewing references to Davis:

Ref 5: Would you consider “the youngest of three children”? I read it as if she had three siblings, when she has two.

I've always thought that the phrase means that Ganz family had three children, and Joan Ganz was the youngest of three, which would infer that she had two siblings.

Ref 16, page 71... I'm not sure if this is the correct reference. Is it? The info wasn't jumping out at me on that page.

Huh? Ref 16 is page 70.

Ref 19: I find Tim Cooney being called a “radical feminist”, but not a “radical liberal”.

You're right, thanks for the catch.

Ref 22: Good use of a quote, but I'm not sure memory-based dialogue is appropriate in Wikipedia.

Not sure what you mean. Ref 22 isn't a quote. Are you talking about ref 21? (Maybe the ref numbering was changed since you made these comments.) If so, I still don't know what you mean by "memory-based dialogue". You're right, it is a great quote. Please further explain your problem with it.

Ref 25: Can you rewrite this own sentence in your own words? Also, the sentence you reference is Chapter 4 Ref 9, which references the full title of the report.

I'm assuming that this is now ref 26. Rewrote sentence as you recommend, and then consolidated the refs to pp. 66-67. Now the refs are really screwed up. ;) On Davis p. 66, last paragraph, he refers to the title of the document.

Ref 33: Even though you didn't reference it, there should be note made of “JCG: Powerful Impact, Gentle Persuasion”, 13, as Davis' information is only as good as that source that neither of us has seen.

Personally, I don't think that's necessary. The ref supports a bunch of things on Davis p. 125--her husband's support, her reluctance to fight for the position, and that was Davis' thoughts, not just the article you mention.

Ref 42: Davis says the foster child died “well shy” of 30, leaving it open to speculation that he was 27, 28, maybe. Your writing says “before he turned 30”, which may suggest to readers that he was 29. I wonder if we could ask Davis himself of his intention with the sentence. Not OR, just clarification.

Again, not necessary. We can't always contact the authors of the sources we use. I think the paraphrase that's here--that Raymond died before he was thirty--is enough.

I'll take a look through Gikow over the next few days, double check those. I'll trust you on Morrow. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gikow checks out. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Let me know what else I can do; I have the time to devote to this now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question, liberals and feminists share many overlaps, they are not the same thing. Keep in mind, we have separate articles on feminism and liberal feminism. More importantly, you chose to use quotation marks... if you quote something directly, quote it directly. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I think that I do quote directly. I attribute the "radical feminist" description of Tim Cooney to Davis, and then immediately include a ref. I wonder if we should wikilink the phrase. I'm not sure that Davis meant it in the technical sense. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, so if you think we should link it, we can. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed the article. Note that I've not passed it as Theatre/dance/opera/other media, which isn't the most relevant category, but as Television. While she's worked in multiple mediums (which I believe you're referencing by the category), it's television at the heart of it all. One of your other past GAs was Television, another was this same alternative category. Congrats. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]