Talk:Belle S. Spafford

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Belle S. Spafford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 17:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to give this article a Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Misspellings, incorrect grammar, etc. See Corrections section. Shearonink (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See "Language/wording/POV" section below. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - all looks well. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No problems. Quality is a small issue though. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Only one image and the caption is fine. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congrats to everyone who worked on this article. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

References

All the Newspapers.com references need to be marked as "subscription required".

Nomination

This is a little bit of a rant, but owing to my recent GA Review experience I am concerned that the nominator has not edited Wikipedia since August of 2016. From their WP-nick I am assuming they might have edited this article as part of a school assignment. I am also concerned that other top editors have not edited this article for quite a while - ARTEST4ECHO has not edited since September of 2015, Amgisseman(BYU) has not edited since November 2016 and so on. None of the Top Ten editors have edited this article since August of 2016. Trying to do a GA Review when there aren't any editors around to help edit it and correct its possible issues is wearing and draining. I want to do a Review, I should not have to do all the heavy lifting on an article to correct all of its issues. I should not have to run after editors who have stopped editing WP altogether or made a nomination in passing etc.
Ok, rant over and back to work. Shearonink (talk)

Publications section

This section is unnecessarily detailed. The reader does not need to know every. single. piece of writing that Stafford authored, all of which were published in the Relief Society Magazine ...every RSM editorial? every RSM article? I mean, the woman was the head of the organization that published the magazine - of course she would write columns or articles as part of her job. All these pieces become white noise and do not contribute to Spafford's notability. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Language/wording/POV

I am concerned about some of the language generally used in this article.

• For instance, the usage of "called"/"calling" implies a religiosity or imprimatur of approval that might be appropriate for an official LDS biography but that seems inappropriate for a WP article with a neutral point of view. If this term is being used as an LDS substitution for "hired" then that needs to be made plain within the text.
• This sentence is unsourced and seems inappropriately hagiographic - "Although she was often held up as an ideal example in the women's rights movements of the 1970s,"

Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is an odd distinction in this article between Stafford's term as the LDS Church's Relief Society General President and then implying that her work as editor of the Relief Society Magazine, founder of the LDS Church's social services program, and board of trustees member in the LDS School System was somehow "local". The lead section and then the Biography section both state this - the sentences needs to be adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Corrections

This sentence is unsourced and not borne-out by the subsequent references, since all of them are statewide or national offices.

• Despite being heavily involved with both the Relief Society and the National Council of Women, Spafford was an active participant in her local community as well.

There are several errors in the Legacy section:

• and at presentation ceremony was honored by BYU ...should be... and at the presentation ceremony was honored by BYU
• She was honored by the university against in 1973 ...should be... She was honored by the university again in 1973
• Spafford Co-authored A Centenary of Relief Society ...should be... Spafford co-authored A Centenary of Relief Society

Shearonink (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. You're correct in assuming that Alexislynn(BYU) isn't editing Wikipedia anymore, at least not under that username. I am watching her talk page though, so I noticed that you completed the review. Thank you! JAGrace (BYU) will be addressing your concerns. She's a student employee in the BYU library helping to improve pages related to our collections. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Publications

At this point the last hurdle to my finishing this GA Review would seem to be the lengthy (and I think, unnecessary) list of all the articles & editorials that Spafford wrote. These articles & editorials were all just part of the jobs Spafford held, are all from the Relief Society Magazine and seem to be of no special note in her career. I looked at some other Wikipedia articles about magazine editors - none of them include the subjects' articles & editorials - take a look at: Hugh Hefner, Louise Bryant, Janice Min, Johan Hambro - even better yet, look through the Good articles and find other editors listed at Magazine and print journalism. Shearonink (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@JAGrace (BYU) and Rachel Helps (BYU): The Publications section needs to be dealt with/discussed before I can finish up this Review. Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: We have deleted the list of publications as suggested in your Review. It is understood that the list did not establish notability for Spafford, and that it ultimately cluttered the page. Please let us know if there is anything else we can do in moving forward with the Review. Your efforts and patience are much appreciated. Thanks, JAGrace (BYU) (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Final readthroughs

I always do some readthroughs when I am getting ready to finish up a GA Review, seeing if there is anything of a proofreading nature that I might have missed. Barring finding anything new - and pending the Publications section mentioned above - I should be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations to the editors who worked on bringing this article into agreement with the GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)