Talk:Lila Meade Valentine

Lila Meade Valentine was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 22, 2020, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Women in Red: Focus on Suffrage (2019)

This article was created or improved during the Focus on Suffrage initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Big expansion

As you can see, I expanded on/added quite a bit to Valentine’s article. I’d love any feedback or suggestions on where to look for additional information. The article is still lacking in photos, and I’m continuing to look for those. After making the changes, ORES had the article at GA, so I changed its rating to a B. ScoutHarris (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lila Meade Valentine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Newtack101 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
LEAD

"When Valentine's legislative efforts proved unsuccessful at the state level, she focused her attention on the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, seeing it become law shortly before her death" --> Did she do anything particularly notable that could be touched on here?

EARLY LIFE

Ref 7 goes to the main Hollywood cemetery homepage, not a page about our subject.
Ref 9 establishes that Richard Hardaway Meade established the Meade & Baker Apothecary, but not that Lila was his daughter. Therefore, I think another reference to establish the connection is needed.
"Valentine was an avid reader and spent hours in her father's library. Her family was well-off and provided her with a formal education commensurate with her societal standing, but she wished to attend college. However, at the time, most universities in Virginia did not admit women, and Valentine would never go on to receive a degree." --> there are two refs given for the last sentence. Is it possible to inline either of these refs, to make it clear which source the information is coming from? Also, I may have overlooked it, but I don't see where either source explicitly states she never received a degree.
"Valentine challenged societal conventions of the time by not using her married name, Mrs. B.B. Valentine, when writing letters." --> the ref establishes that she did in fact send letters under her maiden name, but not that she did this specifically to challenge social conventions. That part part needs to be cited or removed. It would also be helpful to state specifically which name she did write under.
"She and her husband had a stillborn child in 1888 but had no surviving children. She never fully regained her health after the birth and a subsequent surgery; she suffered attacks of indigestion and migraines for the remainder of her life" --> again, it would be preferable to move one of these citations in-line, if possible. It appears the virginia.gov source covers everything but the indigestion and migraines detail. Also, for a journal source, please cite the specific page number you're referencing in addition to the span of the full article. It appears the specific page number for this citation is 473.

The last two paragraphs in this section are one sentence each. Why not combine them to one paragraph?

Looking forward from here, I see that all of the citations are grouped at the ends of each paragraph. This is out of compliance with the MOS (See: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation). Please address the issues above, and provide inline citations throughout, and I will be happy to continue the review. I would like to see the article pass as it's an important subject, and I'm a native Richmonder :) I'm placing it on hold for now. Newtack101 (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Newtack101, and thanks for your review. The nominator expressed elsewhere they may not have sufficient time to pursue this nomination, but depending on how much needs to be done, I may be able to fill in. :)

I'm happy to copyedit, clean up formatting/citations, etc., but probably don't have the capacity myself to do things like track down new sources or really dive into the content of the existing sources. Perhaps you could scan the article as a whole and let me know what you think? If you think it's in good enough shape that we can push it past the GA criteria without nontrivial additional research, I'd be happy to follow up based on your comments so far in the next couple days. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododendrites. Yes, I think the article could probably pass without having to track down new sources. The main issue is the lack of inline sources. I have a small concern about some light interpretation of sources that, while probably correct, may not be fully supported (such as the sentence about challenging naming conventions). I don't mind removing something like this myself, though I'd hate to remove something that could be easily cited by someone more knowledgeable on the subject than myself. That said, someone could always add the cut material back in with the appropriate source whenever they have the time. Newtack101 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead page is excellent regarding women's suffrage work done by Lillian Meade. Eve Shema (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

I went ahead and failed this GA nomination for now, as it's been a month since I raised the issue of no inline citations in the review and there's been no effort to address it. Newtack101 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]