Talk:Sybil Plumlee/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 04:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article and be back with comments. Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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.	I find the prose a bit clunky, some real awkward spots, see below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Very minor issue, but per dup detector (see below) may want to rephrase the sentence about the guests at her centennial birthday - a bit too close to the same phrasing. Also some material from the obit is a bit more than ideal (5-6 word phrases) Not horrible, but worth adjusting. Also would benefit from some wikilink work, see below
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.
	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).	Per dead link checker (see below) there is one dead link. One other may expire and could be noted in wayback as a precaution (or at least saved offline so you have it later)
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It's a bit scattered, jumping from here to there. See below
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	no images (as she is deceased, possibly one fair use image could be used, but not a requirement for GA)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	no images
	7. Overall assessment.

• Comments: I love this article about a fascinating trailblazer! Very fun and close to GA, but I have some suggestions: Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• The table won't allow me to post links above, so here are the links for the automated tool checks:
  • One dead link:[1]
    • Which one? I don't see a dead link. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... there was one, but it's up today. Maybe the server was just down at the time I ran it... All fixed, at any rate! Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
        •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dup detector suggests a couple places where I would advise rephrasing a wee bit (see the longest passages in bold): [2] and [3]] I just went in and fixed these myself, again revert if my fix doesn't work. Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reading the obit, I saw some close paraphrasing, I think the copyediting I suggested below will help that. Example: they have "She worked as a caseworker at Clackamas County Welfare Department when another woman police officer inspired her to take a civil servant test" vs your "During her time as a caseworker for the Clackamas County Welfare Department, a female police officer encouraged her to take a civil servant test. " That's an awfully close paraphrase.... Fixed

• On that note, It's just me, but I'm a fan of saying "woman" instead of "female" wherever it is logical. Fixed

• I'd suggest a thorough copyedit; it looks like it's been awhile since you put this article up for GA, and so you may have fresh eyes to see how some sentences seem disjointed and out of place next to others. Also will help the close paraphrasing I spotted in a couple places. I can give examples if you are stumped, but I'd overall like to see the prose smoothed out and more "sparkling". Just an example: "In 1945, she married Virgil P. "Paul" Plumlee.[1] She survived the 1948 flooding of Vanport, Oregon.[2] Plumlee also occasionally worked as a soda fountain clerk at a drugstore in northeast Portland, and as a cab driver.[2][3]" This is sort of a collection of random facts, it may be a chronological ordering, but maybe at least move the flood somewhere else - if it even needed (was it a major thing in her life?). Tighten up and organize things a bit.
  • Bummer to see a CE suggested since this article was worked on by a couple editors and reviewed by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I'll see what I can do...! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • My sympathies. I'll give you some ideas. None of these are deal-breakers and use your own judgement! Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The one about the flood was definitely one time my brain went "clunk." The source discussed it in terms of her overcoming adversity, and maybe that would be a good grouping in a place where you could also add a wee tiny bit about Paul's troubles ... She teaches until all the children leave and the place turns into a ghost town, then marries a veteran with PTSD that caused him difficulty holding down work even though he was a welder by trade, she moves to Vanport for a better life, gets hired by the department but promptly survives a flood [4] - and note it was AFTER she got hired by the police department... Can you see how this might be restructured a wee bit? (I LIKE this lady! Wow! LOL!) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • "such as investigating an anti-homosexual campaign led by..." is awk, sounds like she investigated the Mayor! Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Changed this wording a bit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • "child abuse or abandonment.[6][7][8] In a 1955 article by The Oregonian called "Pickpockets Beware"..." jump from rape to pickpockets - maybe a short transition phrase like, "she also helped educate women to avoid victimization..." (I'm not particularly hooked on my own phrasing there, but you get the idea...) Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'd move the bit "Plumlee often responded to cases involving child abuse or abandonment" up to the preceding paragraph, as it doesn't have to follow any particular chronology. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I restructured this paragraph a bit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Maybe - maybe- consider starting a new paragraph with her civic efforts at "Plumlee also participated in civic events such as luncheons..." I also note that the events you discuss there occurred after she retired, so maybe that could be moved into the later life section? (Just an idea)*never mind, I was off on the dates. Ignore that Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, this is just me, but perhaps that paragraph about her motives could go to the first paragraph where she passed the test and became a cop. Then start a new paragraph at "She served in the unit..." and merge in all the stuff in the following paragraph about her career. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd split "Early life, education and career" into two sections, one to focus on her police career, and the other for all that came before.
  •  Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• There is both over- and under- wikilinking. "Women's Protective Division" is redlinked twice - if you intend to create an article, I'm OK with the relink, but only once, please. Conversely, I'd suggest that you do wikilink "Clackamas County", possibly "welfare" and/or "welfare department" (for the non-USA reader), maybe child abuse, domestic violence and undercover investigation. Personally, I think I'd link stuff that post-millennial or foreign readers may not know a lot about, such as soda fountain, disorderly conduct, etc. Use your own judgement, but I think it would be good to link a bit more.
  • Would you recommend removing the WPD redlink in the lead or the article prose? (Not sure which is preferred -- usually content is linked in the lead and the first time it appears in the prose.) Linked Clackamas County, child abuse, domestic violence, rape and undercover investigation. I also linked welfare, though I don't like that these two links are side-by-side (looks like one can click on "Clackamas County Welfare"). Should I change the prose to say, "welfare department of Clackamas County, or am I overthinking this? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I had William Robinson Brown pass FA with redlinks in the lead, so I'd say keep it in the lede - if the article is ever created, we'd want it linked at first appearence. I'm OK with "welfare department of Clackamas County" if it still flows OK - I agree that avoiding "sea of blue" is a laudable goal. Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      •  Done Removed second WPD link + fixed wording around welfare / Clackamas County. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Curious what was meant by "investigations were generally conducted in private." - do you know? Did this mean they didn't go to trial or...what?
  • I think this is a generic way of restating what the source says: "The women didn't wear uniforms and handled crimes not openly talked about -- rape, domestic violence and child abuse." But perhaps "in private" is too vague. Should I just remove "investigations were generally conducted in private" from the sentence? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, or maybe "teach the controversy" - about early forms of a Special Victims Unit - to the modern reader who watches Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, they probably don't realize how differently things were handled prior to about 1990, and especially in the 1950s when everyone was very hush-hush about it. I'd say toss it for now, but if you ever take it to FAC, maybe discuss the history??? Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I just tossed it for you. May be worth expanding per my ideas later, but not a big deal for GAN
        • Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Do you have a reason that she retired from the force (apparently while still in her 50s)? Highest rank earned? More to explain why she was a "pioneer"? I noticed this source said she worked on the force for 20 years... I saw that this source expanded on how her husband had PTSD and more reasons why she was a breadwinner- I'd expand on that a bit. There may not be a lot more, but perhaps see if you can flesh out her career a bit more.

That's what I have for now, may spot a few more things to add. But interesting person and interesting life! Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Possible new sources: You may or may not want to expand the article a bit with these, but I found:

1. her husband's obit (he was a welder),
2. this source notes she graduated from college in 1932.
3. this has another tidbit about her working conditions (a male boss assigned to the juvenile unit...)
4. here She is listed among "notable alumni" of WOU

• I would not consider this last one a reliable source. It is a research engine and may actually be pulling info from Wikipedia (?). Will look at the other sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• You may be right... I found several wikipedia mirrors of this article already! Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Update: Added year of graduation per #2, which I have crossed out. Great find! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)  Done

• I think to polish up the text, I just went to the article and inserted hidden text where I think something should be touched up. I made one tweak to the lede myself, as it seemed minor, but you can revert if you don't like my change - I won't be offended! Toss my hidden text when read, and use your own judgement whether my suggestions are the way to go to "fix" the clunky areas that tripped me up. (Figure I'm identifying a problem, but there could be more than one solution!). I'm very close to passing this. Montanabw^(talk) 02:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me know what you think of the Police career section. The first paragraph now includes the reason for joining and stops after a general description of WPD and its scope. The second paragraph includes known details about her career. The third is the summary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Y Changes are great, article improved and issues addressed. Passes GA! Nice work. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review and improve this article. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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.