Jump to content

Talk:Kitty Lee Jenner/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 10:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there! I will be reviewing this article using the table below. Comments will follow shortly. Looking forward to getting stuck in :) Unexpectedlydian♯4 talk‽ 10:46, September 17, 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi again, I'm finished the initial review so will put the article on hold for now. It's always great to read interesting articles which come under Women in Red. If you have any questions about my review please do ping me! Unexpectedlydian♯4 talk‽ 16:14, September 17, 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for taking this on! Mujinga (talk) 09:19, September 18, 2022 (UTC)
    I have answered everything I think, please see what you think Mujinga (talk) 17:35, September 18, 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for your responses! I've crossed off everything which is completed, a few suggestions remaining. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions Unexpectedlydian♯4 talk‽ 11:54, September 19, 2022 (UTC)
    It's nice to have such a collegiate review! I've made responses below and have requested a copy of the Jenner ODNB article at the resource exchange which will hopefully allow me to wrap up the outstanding issues. Please let me know if there's anything else. Mujinga (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone very kindly sent over the article, I can send it over if you'd like but right now your email function is turned off Mujinga (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the ODNB to cover what was left over, I hope Mujinga (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mujinga, sorry for not replying for a few days. Thank you for finding the article! Unfortunately it looks like the Wikipedia Library Oxford sources are still out of action, hoping we hear an update soon. I will do a final sweep of the article and your changes. Thanks for your patience :) Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 20:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Lead

  • I'm not too sure about the clarity of the first two sentences. They essentially repeat the same info in close proximity, i.e. "She was an artist and a writer. She studied art and became a writer." The second sentence isn't particularly clear either: She grew up in Cornwall and having studied art in London, she became a writer. It implies that she became a writer because she studied art? I would recommend changing to something like: Kitty Lee Jenner (September 12, 1853 – October 21, 1936) was an English artist and writer. She grew up in Cornwall and studied art in London. She later became a writer and published six novels under the name .... Let me know what you think.
    • Yes I see what you mean, rephrased Mujinga (talk) 15:44, September 18, 2022 (UTC)

Early life

  • Her artwork was based on sketches and watercolours I don't know if this makes sense. Should it be something like Her artwork consisted of sketches and watercolours?
    • Rephrased Mujinga (talk) 15:44, September 18, 2022 (UTC)

Career

  • Until her husband's fame grew in his old age, her writing career made her the better known of the two. This sentence feels like it's in the wrong place. Could it go it go at the end of the second paragraph instead?
    • I think I'd rather keep where it is presently to preserve the chronology Mujinga (talk) 15:44, September 18, 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikilink Jacobites (if this is indeed the correct article)?
  • In the 1900s, Jenner published three works on the use of symbols in Christianity. As the article previously mentions Jenner's novels, could you specify here that the works on symbols in Christianity are non-fiction?
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lead sections

  • Five instances of bolding names is quite a lot. Which ones are most significant? Or are they all equally significant?
    • As I'm sure you are aware, women often have different names over their lifetime and it's hard to know which ones were more significant. I woould say they all are and more to the point, the names redirect here so they should all be bolded. Mujinga (talk) 16:00, September 18, 2022 (UTC)
  • MOS:LEADBIO says that the first sentence should indicate the main reason the person was notable. From reading the article, that is because of her writing, being a bard and setting up the Cornish Gorsedh. Could you incorporate those into the first sentence?
  • To begin with, she was the more famous person in the relationship. I don't see why this is necessary to include in the lead. It isn't a particularly significant piece of information about Jenner, and implies there is something to come later in the lead regarding Henry Jenner's rise the fame (which isn't included and isn't needed anyway). I suggest removing this sentence.

Layout Infobox

  • Lists her occupation as artist, but the article itself suggests that that was the least important of her professions. Please could you change her occupation to more accurately reflect the Career section of the article?
  • The "Other names" section only includes 2 of the 4 alternative names given in the lead.
    • The rest are present in other bits of the box Mujinga (talk) 16:00, September 18, 2022 (UTC)

Gallery

  • I'm a bit unsure whether this section is needed at all - it may not be with some manoeuvring of the images. As per WP:GALLERY, a gallery should be used if there are a collection of images which cannot be adequately explained by text. I think the title page of In the Alsatian Mountains and cover of When Fortune Frowns aren't necessarily needed, as the books are already described in the article. The illustration from In the Alsatian Mountains, however, is more relevant as it both represents the books and Jenner's work as illustrator. Similarly, I think the illustration from In London Town adds value to the article as it shows an earlier example of Jenner's art. Could those be included in the Career section of the article, maybe in a side-by-side smaller gallery if there isn't loads of room? Do let me know if you disagree with this idea.
    • My rationale would be the other way around: since it's a rather short article I would like to have the images present but there isn't enough text about her books to have the images on the rightside. Therefore the gallery provides a better display of her works and also as you mentioned her illustrations Mujinga (talk) 16:21, September 18, 2022 (UTC)
      • No problem. I that case, I'd make it more obvious in the image captions or in some prose that the illustrations are by Jenner. Unexpectedlydian♯4 talk‽ 11:54, September 19, 2022 (UTC)
    • And as an aside, In London Town isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, so you might want to clarify what it is.
    • done Mujinga (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death

  • I don't think Jenner's death is significant enough to warrant its own section. Could Career maybe instead be Career and later life, and incorporate the para currently in Death? Let me know what you think.

Words to watch

  • Erring on the side of caution, I'd change The Times review remarking to something like a review in The Times wrote.
    • I don't necessarily see a problem with "remarking" but perhaps I misunderstood. In any case, switched to "commenting" Mujinga (talk) 16:00, September 18, 2022 (UTC)

Fiction

  • N/A

List incorporation

  • N/A


2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Sources and references provided in the appropriate section of article.


2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

Source spot check

  • The Times (June 10, 1895) checkY
  • The Times (March 21, 1895) checkY
  • gorsedhkernow.org.uk
    • In the article it says ten Cornish people were initiated as bards at a Gorsedd at Treorchy, but the source calls it Gorsedh - is this just an alternative spelling?
  • Eggert, Paul (1997)
  • Nigg, Joe (2016) checkY
  • Salgado, Gamini; Das, G. K. (1988) checkY
  • Lee, Katharine. In the Alsatian Mountains: A narrative of a tour in the Vosges. [With a map.]
    • A secondary source here as well would be ideal.
      • Had a look, couldn't find one


2c. it contains no original research.
  • Content there is no OR - article is extensively referenced and spot-checks reveal facts are backed up by the sources.


2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Copyvio brings up nothing of concern.
  • Source spots check also bring up nothing of concern.


3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Unfortunately I can't access the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography at the moment, where I'm sure the majority of information about Jenner resides. However, I'm satisfied from reading the other sources that the main aspects of Jenner's life are covered here.
  • If there is anything more about her career as an artist, maybe add a couple of extra lines as there isn't a lot of coverage in the article at the moment.
    • Sadly there isn't much more I don't think. Although I can't check the ODNB entry right now but of course that is for her husband anyway Mujinga (talk) 17:34, September 18, 2022 (UTC)
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Focus is good, no unnecessary detail.


4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Topic is presented neutrally.


5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • All recent edits are constructive. Majority of edits are constructive and by the nominator.


6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • Does the infobox image need a Template:PD-UK-unknown tag instead of EU?
    • I'm not sure! But I've added the PD-UK-unknown tag Mujinga (talk) 17:34, September 18, 2022 (UTC)
      • Just checking because the EU tag states "For a work made available to the public in the United Kingdom, please use Template:PD-UK-unknown instead." As it was taken in Truro, I'm guessing it was available in the UK. I've also added the web page from which the photo was taken to the image file for further accountability. Unexpectedlydian♯4 talk‽ 11:54, September 19, 2022 (UTC)
  • File:205 of 'In London Town. A novel. By Katharine Lee' (11089577835).jpg needs a Public Domain copyright tag.
    • Image licensing is not an area of expertise for me, but I have added some more tags Mujinga (talk) 17:34, September 18, 2022 (UTC)
      • It's not my area of expertise either, so apologies! However, I do think the UK tag isn't relevant as we do know who the author is (Jenner). In that case, we are presumably dealing with lifetime+70 years. I've added a relevant tag. Unexpectedlydian♯4 talk‽ 11:54, September 19, 2022 (UTC)
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • See comment above in criterion 1b regarding Gallery section.


7. Overall assessment.

@Mujinga Just had a final read through and it all looks good. Thank you for persisting with the sources. Very happy to pass the article! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 20:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice. Thanks for the careful review! Mujinga (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kitty_Lee_Jenner/GA1&oldid=1111777170"