Talk:Mary Paxton Keeley

Mary Paxton Keeley has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 13, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Biography

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

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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 writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. reppop^talk 00:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Paxton Keeley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammielh (talk · contribs) 21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reppop (talk · contribs) 01:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be doing this review. This article has been on my radar for a while now as I was using it for an informal practice of GA reviewing, so I though it would be time to do an actual review. I plan to do some of it today and the rest throughout the week. Forgive me for any hiccups. reppop^talk 01:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Will be taking a break from this to rest, will get back to this tomorrow. reppop^talk 05:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Reppop: Thanks for picking this up. Sorry for the delay, I've been so busy! I've added some comments below, need to come back on two of the prose points when I have a chance to look back through the sources. Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in 6a, welcome back. I've asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright about the images and if they can have another license. reppop^talk 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, comments below. Sammielh (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2024 (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.	Overall, prose is clear and concise, with only some things that I found to be off: ~~"She was encouraged by the dean…" – You should switch "Walter Williams" and "the dean of the Missouri School of Journalism".~~ "Her husband quickly fell ill…" – You should remove "quickly" and replace it with either "fell ill shortly after" or "fell ill two years later" to make it more precise. "…despite her aunts insisting that women could not be reporters…" – Add an apostrophe to "aunts" to make it more clear if its one or more. "Her former love Ross was ultimately given the post, after Truman was elevated to the presidency." – Don’t think you need “her former love”, as Ross’s former relationship with Paxton had been established in Kansas City Post Done all! Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Looks good. Striking as done. ~~"…her father and brothers were disappointed and Ross was uncomfortable…" – Might need to give more context as to why they were disappointed/uncomfortable.~~ ~~"which caused Ross embarrassment." – I think you need a little more context as to why he was embarrassed of her living in the sorority house.~~ Need to take a look at these two. Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Expanded both sections. Sammielh (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Looks better, and I can see the context in the prose now. Striking as done. I think you can add the “Paxton and Ross remained close throughout…” note as extra prose afterwards where the note currently is. You could also potentially do the same with the other notes as well. I added this into the text but prefer the other two as notes as they are one writer's opinion. Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Looks good now with the text in there. Seems like a good system for having writer's opinions without adding more text. Striking as done.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Don't see any issues with MoS; lead and body sections look good, don't see any words to watch (that isn't a quote), fiction and list incorporation not in article.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed by order of appearance, sources are listed by order of surnames, both with appropriate information given.
	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).	I'll check some of the references and some of the sources separately. [8]: Source states that club was formed in 1895 and studies various topics that are said in article. Y [26]: Source states that Keely had a stage appearce with Ted Shawn. Y [72]: Source shows that center was renamed in honor of her works and that Edmund died in 1926. Y [88]: ~~Source doesn't really go into how Paxton and Wallace wrote to each other, nor her avoiding D.C. from what I see.~~ Y "The girlhood friends still correspond regularly". The part about avoiding D.C. is in the other source Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ah, didn't see that. Should be good. Changing. [103]: Source is about Paxton's death at age 100. Y Beasley (1986): Source states the total that is mentioned in the article. Y Burnes: States that her mother was an early graduate and mentions the other things that are in the article. Y Firkus: Has a reference to Paxton's articles about the superintendent. Y May be metter to use this link instead of the EBSCO as it is more available. Swapped! Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sandels: Source mentions Paxton's documentation of the A.E.F. language. Y Overall, I think most are good, I would just need a check on [88] to see if there's actually something that points to her letters and D.C. I've done some minor copy editing stuff on there as well.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Don't see any major problems with original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig copyvio check turns up with no copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses main topics as dictated by the headers (and somewhat by the lead as well).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Maintains summary style throughout the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is largely neutral, although there are some things I noticed: ~~”Despite the shadow of her mother's illness,” – Might be more neutral to say “During her mother's illness”~~ ~~"…as she saw herself as a pioneer…” – Might be better to have this from a quote as it is something subjective.~~ ~~"…she interviewed and wrote about famous suffragists and women…" – I think you can take out "famous" to make it more neutral.~~ Done all! Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Looks good now. Striking as done.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Hasn't been edited since May 10, mostly been edited by 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.	Some of the images' licenses are a little dubious, as they have a {{PD-because}} "SHSMO says there are no known copyright restrictions" but some have varying copyright descriptions, including in copyright with the rights-holder unlocatable and copyright undetermined. Specifically these ones: ~~File:Senior Journalists 1910.jpg ("In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable")~~ File:Editor's Week 1910.jpg ("In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable") File:Keeley in France.jpg ("In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable") File:Mary and John Keeley.jpg ("In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable") File:Christian College.jpg ("Copyright undetermined") ~~File:Mary Paxton Keeley House.jpg ("Copyright undetermined")~~ I would suggest finding out if they're published and changing the licenses to other specific licenses. I can definitely help with this if you need. Those definitely seem to have changed on the SHSMO site since I uploaded the photos! I'll admit to being awful with image copyright so happy for any help you can offer. Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] First of all, welcome back! I grew somewhat worried for a little while. And second, if it has changed, I'll take a look and see. Either way, I still think it would still be able to use other license/public domain templates on these. I'll take a look at your other comments now. Everything is fine, just a really busy few weeks at work! I have removed the other images from the article for now if that works. Sammielh (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think it should be fine without the images, it still works for most of the layout overall. I'll pass this section, although if there is still any issues, subsequent editing can be done.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images seem to be relevant to both the topic and their sections.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am going to place this on hold for a bit so that you can return and see the comments and address them. Otherwise, the article is very good. Edit (June 12, 2024): As the issues are (mostly) now fixed, I will pass this article.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.