Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• There are long sections mixed with very short sub-sections, and there are some short paragraphs. This inhibits flow, and gives a poor appearance. See WP:BODY. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Section and paragraph sizes are now more uniform and readable. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are six paragraphs in the lead, two of which consist of only two sentences. WP:Lead recommends no more than four paragraphs. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Was not aware of the four paragraph guideline. --Noleander (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Surprisingly insecure inline citation for a GA nomination. The weak presentation, and weak citation is already giving me cause for concern. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Inline cites have been provided for all statements likely to be challenged. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• The lead section does not give an adequate summary of the article. See WP:Lead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Lead is now a summary of entire article. Specific aspects of lead may still need work, if reviewer so determines. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Prose is just about adequate in conveying information, but is not enjoyable to read. It does not flow. It reads like a series of disjointed notes. We have a series of very short sentences, and sometimes very short paragraphs - "Sanger was arrested eight times." is an entire paragraph. The lack of detail and context is frustrating, and the writing at this point is at starter level, and not something one expects at GA level. As the meaning is conveyed, I would be inclined to make a note of it as something to improve if everything else were OK and still list, but combined with the other faults I'm seeing, this is another reason inhibiting listing. It's fairly borderline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Prose has been improved substantially. Not my strong suit. Any remaining issues should be specifically identified and I/we can work on them. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On hold

I've not yet checked sources for accuracy, neutral POV, coverage, etc; the article doesn't meet the basic criteria for presentation and formatting. I'm putting on hold for an initial seven days to allow some copy-editing to take place to improve presentation, for the formatting of the sections and the lead to be addressed to met the relevant guidelines, and for inline citations to be found to support the various challengeable statements and opinions present in the article. I have done some tags to help indicate where the citations are most needed. This is not exhaustive, and attention should be paid to where in-line citations are needed.. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I (and perhaps others) will work on those areas. --Noleander (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• An impressive amount of work has been done on the article. I'll take a closer look in the next few days. Inline cites appear much more often, though there are some dates and positions given for Sanger that might be questioned. It's never the amount of cites that matters, but if they are appropriately supporting the sort of information that people may rely on and be embarrassed if they got wrong. I thought I'd check a few dates that are uncited, and note that the article says: "In 1923, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control (NCFLBC)...", while this source says it was formed in 1929, and she served as Chairman until 1932 when the organisation was incorporated and she was named president. What is the relationship between The Birth Control Review and Birth Control News founded in 1917, and the two publications, The Birth Control Review and The Birth Control News launched in 1937? This source indicates that The Birth Control Review and The Birth Control News were separate publications until 1937 when they became amalgamated as The Birth Control Review and Birth Control News. I'm disconcerted that two statements I pick on to check both appear to be incorrect and misleading. This does sometimes happen even in the best of articles, but it's worth checking through the article again to ensure that dates and facts are correct and are appropriately cited. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Those two issues have been fixed. Still need to inspect the rest of the article for accuracy. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those mistakes. I'll fix them. That material dates from before my time on this article (not to say I have not made my fair share of errors :-). FYI: I'll be on Wikibreak from Oct 5 to Oct 12, so I'll be unable to reply to any questions or make any edits. Not to imply that I'm the only editor that can work on the GA nomination, but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone wonders if I got offended and left in a huff :-) After Oct 13, I'll be able to resume work on this. We'll get it there eventually. --Noleander (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to give more time. I'm inclined to keep reviews open as long as there is positive progress being made, and there appears to be a chance of reaching a conclusion within a reasonable space of time. I'm frequently nagged by Wizardman for keeping reviews open for well over a month, though I see the GA process as being one that improves the quality of articles on Wikipedia, and as long as that is happening, then I'm quite content. While I have not been impressed with the quality of this article so far, I have been impressed by your work ethic, and willingness to push this through to GA listing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. The end of October should be do-able. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I scrutinized the entire article, and validated the sources and checked the text against the sources for accuracy (most of them: I do not have access to some sources). I made several changes to improve accuracy, and removed a few statements that were not sufficiently sourced. I think the article is now ready for another pass of the review process. --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving me a nudge. I had this marked down as a long hold and pushed it to the back of my schedule. I will take a closer look as soon as I have some more time. I note that quite a few images have been added to the article. Images can be very helpful to the reader in gaining an understanding, and of bringing a topic to life, and also of making an article look more attractive, so aiding readability. Some thought should be given to the layout, the appearance, the amount, and the educational value of the images. Relevant guidelines are MOS:IMAGES and WP:LAYIM. Consideration should also be given to the size and helpfulness of WP:Captions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I've reviewed the MOS illustration guidelines, and - based on those guidelines - removed an image, and improved a few captions. The pictures should now be satisfactory. --Noleander (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• File:SangerAndSon.tiff - could you check the usage of this with Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. The source is not clear (given only as "Library of Congress"), and the licensing tag is relying on publication, though no publication date or source is given. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I cannot find better provenance for that photo, so I've removed it. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• File:Havelock Ellis 30yo.JPG - this also needs checking. The author given is this user, which is unlikely. The licence tag says the author died more than 70 years ago, but without knowing who the author is, that may not be true. It may be possible to use {{Anonymous-EU}} if the photograph was published anonymously. Do you have access to the source text - Havelock Ellis philosopher of love - ? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I cannot find better provenance for that photo, so I've removed it. --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Footnote 1, regarding the divorce, is unsourced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Sources added to that footnote. That was intended to just be a clarifying Note distinguishing the separation from the divorce ... the details and sources were in the article body. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why are there bullet-point multiple cites? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it be more acceptable to have multiple footnotes (separate numbers)? The goal of the bullets was simple to make the prose look cleaner: a single [23] is cleaner than [23][24][25]. But either way is fine by me: I have no preference. --Noleander (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we need multiple cites in the first place? If the material in the sentence can be supported by one source that is enough. If you are using books which would otherwise not get cited in the article, and which you feel are of value, it is acceptable to have a short "further reading" section. I know that I have been tempted at times to use multiple cites purely because a source was interesting and I wanted to make use of it! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That is a tough call. I guess the multiple cites are useful if readers are interested in a particular fact (e.g. Sanger's divorce) and they want to read as much about it as possible, or see how the various biographers treated it. Is there a WP guideline that limits footnote quantity? I know there are such guidelines for images and external links. Another problem is that a sentence may contain two facts, one from one source and the other from a second source: and eliminating one source would not be good in that situation. That said, I have no objection to cutting them back to one source per footnote if you prefer. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

...another solution would be to keep the information in the footnote, but lay it out as a paragraph rather than bullets. So the footnote might look like:

23^ Baker, p 63; Chesler, p 152.

24^ Engelman, p 252 (date of divorce); Chesler, p 52 (date of separation).

That way all the information is still there for the readers, but the ugly bullets are gone. --Noleander (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried this suggestion (multiple sources in a single paragraph) in footnotes #1, #2, and #4, so we could see what it looks like. I think this may be a good approach: I'm looking at several hardback scholarly books at this moment, and it is common for them to include multiple sources within one footnote "paragraph". They seem to use semicolons to separate the sources within the footnote. --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha! I found a WP guideline on this: WP:CITEBUNDLE. It recommends the bullet approach. There is also a WP essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill but it seems to be addressing the situation where an editor goes crazy and includes 10 or 20 sources for a given fact. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Okay, I found a good middle ground: I eliminated the bullets, but kept the multiple sources in each footnote. Each is separated by a line break, so it looks clean. Let me know if it is not acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Do we need the list of recipients of the Margaret Sanger Awards? I think it's appropriate to mention that there is an award named after her, and to gain some idea of the importance or respect of the award, though am not sure of the value of naming celebrity recipients. It feels like the importance is being generated by the list of celebrities, rather than the award itself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Removed overly detailed list of recipients. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence "Inspired by this milieu, she started writing a series of articles about sexual hygiene entitled "What Every Mother Should Know" and "What Every Girl Should Know" for the socialist magazine New York Call", has four cites, which of them support the view that Sanger was "Inspired by this milieu"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Reworded to more accurately reflect the sources. --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• "birth control" is mentioned nine times in the lead. Probably not possible given the subject matter, but could this be reduced? And, at the same time, could that she coined the term itself be put into the first paragraph per WP:LEAD's suggestion that "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - I moved "coined" into the first paragraph. Of the remaining 8 uses of "birth control": I was able to change one to the synonym "contraception". Two are in proper names. That leaves five ... but I do not think any of the remaining five can be changed. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pass

There has been some very impressive work done on this article. It serves as a readable, useful and well cited overview of an important and interesting birth control activist. There is ongoing work to do, however this now meets GA criteria. Examples of ongoing work are ensuring that statements such as "Europe had a much more liberal view of contraception than the United States" do have cites; tidying up the presentation so that there are fewer short paragraphs; and tidying up logical flow - in the Birth control movement section for example we end one paragraph in 1917 then start the next in 1916 and end the section by going back to 1913. It's not always possible to ensure a perfect chronological flow, nor to keep all matters neatly grouped, but it's something to keep an eye on, and attempt to avoid such toing and froing. Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank for your help ... both the review and your contributions to the article itself. --Noleander (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. It couldn't have been easy.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It was not easy, but I learned a lot. Silk Tork was a big help. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)