Talk:Mildred McAdory/GA1: Difference between revisions

 

Line 85: Line 85:

#:: {{S|Lead should be slightly longer and the use of single-sentence paragraphs in the Later career section is an issue.}}

#:: {{S|Lead should be slightly longer and the use of single-sentence paragraphs in the Later career section is an issue.}}

#Is it ”'[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]”’ with ”’no original research”’, as shown by a [[WP:GAN/I#R3|source spot-check]]?

#Is it ”'[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]”’ with ”’no original research”’, as shown by a [[WP:GAN/I#R3|source spot-check]]?

#:A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with [[WP:FNNR|the layout style guideline]]: {{GAList/check|?}}

#:A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with [[WP:FNNR|the layout style guideline]]: {{GAList/check|}}

#:: Citation style could be more consistent, as harvnb formatting is currently used for only one source.

#:: Citation style could be more consistent, as harvnb formatting is currently used for only one source.

#:B. [[WP:Reliable sources|Reliable sources]] are [[WP:Inline citation|cited inline]]. All content that [[Wikipedia:Content that could reasonably be challenged|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): {{GAList/check|y}}

#:B. [[WP:Reliable sources|Reliable sources]] are [[WP:Inline citation|cited inline]]. All content that [[Wikipedia:Content that could reasonably be challenged|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): {{GAList/check|y}}

Line 94: Line 94:

#:: [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Mildred+McAdory&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Earwig doesn’t flag anything] and spotchecks found no clear cases of plagiarism.

#:: [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Mildred+McAdory&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Earwig doesn’t flag anything] and spotchecks found no clear cases of plagiarism.

#Is it ”’broad in its coverage”’?

#Is it ”’broad in its coverage”’?

#:A. It addresses the [[Wikipedia:Out of scope|main aspects]] of the topic: {{GAList/check|?}}

#:A. It addresses the [[Wikipedia:Out of scope|main aspects]] of the topic: {{GAList/check|}}

#:: There’s a few large gaps in the biography that have me questioning what she was doing during such long stretches of her life.

#:: There’s a few large gaps in the biography that have me questioning what she was doing during such long stretches of her life.

#:B. It stays [[Wikipedia:Article size|focused on the topic]] without going into unnecessary detail (see [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]]): {{GAList/check|y}}

#:B. It stays [[Wikipedia:Article size|focused on the topic]] without going into unnecessary detail (see [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]]): {{GAList/check|y}}

#:: {{S|There might be a bit too much blow-by-blow detail of the story of her arrest for an encyclopedic article. This could be condensed a bit.}}

#:: {{S|There might be a bit too much blow-by-blow detail of the story of her arrest for an encyclopedic article. This could be condensed a bit.}}

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

Nominator: Guerreroast (talk · contribs) 06:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Thank you for nominating this during Women in Green’s 9th edit-a-thon, I’ll be happy to take this on for review as part of the February 2026 GAN backlog drive. —Grnrchst (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [1] Can’t find any birth date on page 1 of the thesis. I’m assuming this is citing an incorrect page number. (I can’t access the document beyond page 5).
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• “Of three siblings,” This is an odd way to start a sentence, especially when it then goes on to describe her parents. Was she the youngest, oldest or middle child?
• “Crittle “Critty” (or “Crittie”)” Is it really necessary to list every spelling variation of her mother’s name? For an encyclopedic article on McAdory that only mentions her mother once after introducing her, this seems like a trivial detail.
• “Being literate by age five,” This is oddly worded. Do we know anything about how she became literate?
• “In an interview, she said that” Is “she” here referring to McAdory’s mother or McAdory herself?
• “the seed was born in [her] to begin to fight” Can we summarise the gist of this quote in wikivoice, or is the specific wording of the quote important?
• “after witnessing a white superintendent call a black teacher by her first name.” Might need a wee bit of context to clarify why this was problematic.
• “which her father funded the tuition of by mining” I think how he funded it is already clear, given we’ve already mentioned what his job was.
• “personal farm” What’s a personal farm? Is it referring to its size? If so, I think “small farm” would be clearer.
• “Following high school,” Did she graduate?
• “a private college in Alabama” Do we know which one?

• • I have deleted the PDF of the source between my creation of the article and now; I will request another copy. Fixed most, though ones which ask for more information will have to wait, because I don’t have the source anymore; I assume I didn’t fill out the information due to a lack of it in the source used. Roast (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: [11] Verified her recruitment, but couldn’t find anything about the specific year of 1937. Source implies she was recruited during Cooper Jackson’s tenure as SNYC executive secretary, which began in 1942.
• “She first worked for the SNYC” We’ve just mentioned two other women, so it’s best to clarify who “she” is here.
• Link to Fairfield, Alabama.
• “she helped increase its membership” Of the recreational centre or the SNYC as a whole?
• Is all this about her work in the SNYC cited to the Jackson Advocate article about the lawsuit?
• Is there an online archive of the Jackson Advocate issue that we could be linking to?

• I think the blow-by-blow of what happened on the bus could be condensed a bit and the first three paragraphs merged together.
• “a standee” What is a standee?
• “an officer – named Dean –” It seems odd that we’re naming this police officer, but none of the other people in this story, especially when we’re only given his first name and he’s never mentioned by name again.
• Spotcheck: [2] This source doesn’t mention many of these specifics, only that “police arrested her, hit her, and put her in jail”.
• “she was brought to a holding cell” Was she brought there by the same officer? If so, given the sentence starts with him “composing himself”, it might be better to use active voice rather than passive voice.
• “the police officer” The one who beat her or one of the ones that arrested her?
• “gave false testimonies” Do the cited sources verify this? This is quite a definitive statement to be making in wikivoice.
• “she was found guilty” Of what charges?
• Spotcheck: [21] This source doesn’t appear to mention anything about a fine.
• Spotcheck: [21] Source doesn’t mention that the pamphlet was directed to the US House of Representatives, only that the SNYC had printed the pamphlet to “publicize her arrest”.
• Spotcheck: [22][23] Verified in both sources.
• Spotcheck: [11][21] Verified in Lieberman & Lang but not in McWorther.

• • a standee is someone who stands while riding public transportation; changed to “who was standing”. Solved some; will solve more later because I’m going out to eat soon. Roast (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• “She made the suggestion to simplify the wording of the paper’s articles” Suggest: “She suggested the paper simplify the wording of its articles”
• “After departing from the paper, she became an organizer for the CPUSA” Perhaps it’s best to move the introduction of her membership of the CPUSA from the “Early career” section to here, given that this is where it becomes more relevant to her biography.
• There is a very large gap between her activities in the 1940s and her 1960 run. What was she doing during the 1950s?
• Link to New York State Assembly.
• Spothceck: [26] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [29] Cited source says she was required to file as a member of a “Communist-action organization”, which is much more specific wording than the more broadly-defined “left-wing candidate”.
• “Their removal was challenged by four Democrats” Did anything come of this challenge?
• These last few sentences are rather scattershot, which isn’t helped by the use of single-sentence paragraphs. This could do with more filling out and some paragraph merging.
• This seems to gloss over the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, only giving a couple snapshots. Could we get a bit more information about what she was doing in all this time, in between the moments we’re told about?
• “McAdory was married to Joseph Edelman.” When did they marry? It’s also a bit repetitive to mention this here after we’ve already introduced Edelman during his arrest.
• “She had a son, Stephen McAdory Steelman, who was a furniture maker. He died on May 4, 1951, aged 18, of illness.” This is duplicating information from the “Early life” section. If his profession and how he died is relevant, it could probably be moved there.

• • Fixed for the most part. Will not link to New York State Assembly, as it’s linked in the lead. Information about her activities in the 60s-80s is pretty much unknown. Newspapers.com has a dearth of coverage on her in that time compared to other decades. The Daily World claimed she was to receive a “long term in prison”, though I could not find a followup to this. Same unverifibility goes for when she married Edelman. Roast (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is rather short, at 82 words. Lead sections should usually be at least 100 words in length, so another sentence or two should help.
• Show the full name of “People’s Party” in the infobox, rather than just “People’s”.

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:

   A few cases where the prose is unclear or could be more concise.

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

   Lead should be slightly longer and the use of single-sentence paragraphs in the Later career section is an issue.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   Citation style could be more consistent, as harvnb formatting is currently used for only one source.

   B. 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):

   All sources are reliable and cited inline throughout.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Some of the spotchecks I carried out failed verification, either due to an incorrect page number or information not being in the cited source at all.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig doesn’t flag anything and spotchecks found no clear cases of plagiarism.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There’s a few large gaps in the biography that have me questioning what she was doing during such long stretches of her life.

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

   There might be a bit too much blow-by-blow detail of the story of her arrest for an encyclopedic article. This could be condensed a bit.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   One query about a definitive description of “false testimonies”, otherwise it’s all neutral.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No reversions in article history, large major change was a few months ago.

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

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

   Images seem to have valid public domain rationale (published in US newspapers without a copyright notice).

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

   Both images are of the article’s subject.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This was a very informative article to read about an undercovered person in the US civil rights movement. It does not currently meet GA criteria, falling short on prose, verifiability, broadness and neutrality, but I’m confidant that with a bit of work it can be improved and brought in line with each of them. Feel free to ping me once my comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions. Nice work on this so far! —Grnrchst (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. @Grnrchst: I’m ready for a re-check. About the Harvnb, the thesis is under it because of how many pages are cited. All other books cite one or two pages, which I would say isn’t enough usage to require a Harvnb. And I don’t think newspapers are placed into Harvnb, due to their length often remaining less than one or two pages in length. Roast (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      @Guerreroast: Still think her membership in the CPUSA should be moved from “Early career” to “Later career” section, as it’s the latter where it’s more relevant. The “Later career” section also duplicates the information of her being surveilled by the FBI. These are my only remaining quibbles. —Grnrchst (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]