Talk:Eugenia Washington/GA1
Appearance
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll conduct this review over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Checklist[edit]
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments[edit]
- Early life, family, and ancestry
- I'd normally oppose this level of ancestry in a biography, but it seems particularly appropriate here.
- As you can see, Ms. Washington has a distinguished pedigree, which lends to her relevance. I normally don't expound upon someone's relations as I have done here, but it seemed appropriate to provide context for her drive to create such organizations like DAR. -- Caponer (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- "...William Temple Washington, received his education at..." is a little awkward. Maybe "was educated at" would be better?
- United States Post Office Department
- Post Office jobs were often distributed as political patronage in those days. Is there anything in your sources about how she got the job?
- The sources do not say how she got the job, but they do link her lineage and heritage to her acquiring the position. I will continue to search for additional sources in the meantime, but for now, I cannot find something more specific in my existing literature review. Thank you for the suggestion, though! -- Caponer (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- References
- Most of your citations don't link properly to the full cite below.
- Images
- Coemgenus, thank you tremendously for your review of this article. Please let me know if you have any outstanding comments, questions, or concerns. Your time spent reviewing this is much appreciated, and I thank you again for your guidance and patience throughout this process. -- Caponer (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Caponer: After a second reading, everything here looks good to go except that one detail of the Hetzel source that I mentioned above. Thanks for writing this, it was an enjoyable read. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)