Talk:Elizabeth Hazelton Haight

Elizabeth Hazelton Haight has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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: January 19, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Women in Red: 2017

This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project in 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles

Women's Classical Committee

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Classical Committee, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Classical Committee articles 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's Classical CommitteeWikipedia:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeTemplate:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeWomen's Classical Committee articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

thanks Victuallers (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Hazelton Haight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent topic for a GA - I'd be happy to offer a review. At the moment, I always seem to review in spare minutes between other things, so my comments may come in dribs and drabs. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is probably too short at two short sentences. As a shorter article, it's firmly in the "one or two paragraphs" range per MOS:LEADLENGTH, so I would recommend one fairly substantial paragraph or two shorter paragraphs. - Extended
~~You seem to be using American date formats but British spelling - consistency would be good. I would recommend going with American dates and spelling as she was American.~~ - I've Americanized wherever I can spot British spellings, but these are hard for me to pick out, so do change any others you note!
~~In the paragraph starting "Haight matriculated at", could you specify the subject of her degrees? Classics, presumably?~~ - Clarified
~~What is "the Yearbook"? Is this a specific publication?~~ - no, so have de-capitalised.
~~"In the intervening period" - Between her degrees? Perhaps the paragraph could be rearranged to be a little more chronological - you may also want to think about splitting it.~~ Fixed
"During her graduate study, she held teaching posts in preparatory schools in New York State." Is this repetition of the already listed schools? Or do you mean to say she continued teaching at unnamed schools post-1900? - Fixed - it's a little unclear, but having gone back through the evidence I think this was accidental repetition rather than ongoing teaching.

Stopping there for now (sorry...). Please double-check my edits so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again - you talk about her time as faculty at Vasser out of chronological order. I'd be the last to say that stories are always best told chronologically, but in this case, it strikes me that being a little more chronological would be a help to readers. - Fixed, paragraph is now chronological.
~~Could you check the "privileged princesses" quote? You appear to be missing some quote marks.~~

*Could we have a wikilink or explanation for "Founders' Day"? It's not a holiday I know. Done!

Could you specify the date and (if known) cause of death in the final paragraph of the career section? Don't worry about repeating content from the lead - a lead shouldn't contain any information not elsewhere in the article anyway. - Added date, cause is not recorded in the sources (she was 92, so it was probably not a surprise).
~~There's a degree of inconsistency with the capitalistion of the initial letter of "classics", "classical" and similar. Could I ask you to take another look?~~ - done, capitals now used when referring to the name of the field, but not otherwise.
~~It's a little jarring that you call the Italy book her first but then list two prior to it in the bibliography. I can definitely see why you've done this, but perhaps it could be reframed.~~ Adjusted for clarity
"reflecting the success of her attempts to make these works accessible to multiple audiences" Do you have a source for this claim? Otherwise, it comes across as editorialising, and thus "original research". Removed.
~~Could you add an appropriate wikilink for "symbolism"?~~ - Not straightforwardly, as the kind of symbolism (the artistic movt) with a Wikipedia page is not what Haight was looking at.
~~Could you include the publishers as well as the locations in the selected publications section?~~
~~You don't include the history of Vassar in the list - was this deliberate? - Yes as it's a selected list, but I have put it in now.~~

I don't want to get bogged down in reference formatting and such at GAC, but, looking at the references:

~~You twice cite Find a Grave, which is not a reliable source. They should really be replaced, and if no replacement can be found, the information should be removed.~~ Replaced sources.
Your "Database of Classical Scholars" link is dead. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a source, but it would be better if you replaced it with a live link, or included an archive url. (If that's meaningless to you, tell me, and I'll look into it.) Fixed the link!
I assume you're citing the McManus book, rather than the webpage you link to. I'd advise removing the link. A link to an online copy of the book is one thing, but a link to a webpage about the book is another entirely. Done
~~Are the two NYT sources the same? If so, could they be merged into one footnote?~~ Done

And questions on categories:

~~Would it be right to call her a philologist? The word isn't mentioned outside of the association name, but it opens up lots more categories that could be added.~~ Yes - added some categories accordingly!
What language was the Life of Alexander translated from? Would it be appropriate to add Category:Latin–English translators, or should it be Category:Translators of Ancient Greek texts? Or would both work? - It's Greek, so I've added the latter.

That's what jumps out at me on a first read-through. Again, it's great to see this article here, and I'm hopeful that this will make a decent GA. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Josh Milburn - I'll start working through these suggested edits now, and indicate on your list what I've done as I work through them. It may take me a few days as I'm editing in free time around work. KateCook (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KateCook: Let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn and KateCook: Reminder ping that this is still open. AIRcorn (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I've been slammed at work, but am aiming to finish making adjustments this week, so hopefully everything will be ready then! KateCook (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready when you are; let me know when you're done, and I'll take a look with a fresh pair of eyes. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Right, sorry for the delay - I've gone through all of the edits suggested in your review, (with notes above for reference), so let me know what you think now! KateCook (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look through the article, and I think it's looking very good. I've made some tweaks here and there (and also put together a quick stub on James Monroe Taylor) and I'm now happy to promote the article. Great working with you! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks very much Josh Milburn! It's been a pleasure. KateCook (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]