Talk:Edith Jacqueline Ingram Grant

Source availability

I'm having trouble finding sources that don't seem to link back to the History Makers article. Most of what I've found is obituaries/short memorials and I suspect most of them used History Makers for their source material. My search in Galileo didn't turn up much, either.Hestera nmac3108 (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hestera nmac3108: Be sure you're using Deboarah Stanfield for assistance. There are also resources you can try off of the assignment page. —Grlucas (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I will get in touch with her.Hestera nmac3108 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I checked the Georgia Historic Newspapers archive and came up with a brief mention regarding Georgia Coalition of Black Women. It only really mentions her name as a member but might be usable if we list organizations she has been involved with. https://gahistoricnewspapers.galileo.usg.edu/lccn/sn89053614/1989-06-28/ed-1/seq-2/#index=7&rows=12&proxtext=%22edith+ingram%22&sequence=0&words=Edith+Ingram&page=1Hestera nmac3108 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

Folks, once again, we should be using Harvard citations and shortened footnotes with the {{sfn}} template in our article. Everyone who has added a source has not followed this guideline. Fortunately this is easy to fix. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Trouble with shortened footnotes

Dr. Lucas, I saw your last post and tried to fix my citation, but I don't understand how that works on Wikipedia. How do we correct our mistakes? Thank you,

KLJordan (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

Hey, I fixed this citation for you, but the page Dr. Lucas linked has info on the shortened footnote templates. We should be using {{sfn}} tags instead of <ref> tags and either use the author's last name or the publication name if no author. For the History Makers interview/site, using History as the publication name followed by the publication year links it to the reference cited in the bibliography.Hestera nmac3108 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ingram vs Grant

I've noticed that most everything I can find refers to her as Judge Ingram or Judge Edith Ingram - not Grant - so we should be consistent with that throughout the article.Hestera nmac3108 (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hestera nmac3108: Agreed: consistency is key, though there is nothing wrong with just "Grant". —Grlucas (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

October 21, 2020

@Brebre143, Jayla P, Taeeees, Hestera nmac3108, JREubanks, C.pinkston, Jmshepp912, AutumnMM97, KHunter7, Chaseducharme, KLJordan, Cross0023, Eswill01, JRDavisjr, Morganwiggins928, and Jasmarie1215: This is just a copy/paste from my feedback on Yancy. I put it here because

1. The same information mostly applies, and
2. We need to work on this article, too.

---

A solid start to the article, though there is much to do! You should be working on this daily until the end of the semester to get it perfect. We're aiming to meet FA criteria here, so we need to be meticulous. I have a couple of notes.

Again, please use sfn (see above). I have corrected this several times to show how it is done. It's up to you now to be sure it's right. Some sources are questionable, like those with no authors and no publication dates. I suggest we try to get rid of these. Be wary of source order in the works cited §; I left a note in there about correct order. Page numbers must be used from print sources.

We must start adding categories, too. These just have to be searched for.

Typos are unacceptable. Errors you leave for someone else to correct are also unacceptable—especially obvious ones. Please preview before saving. Make multiple edits before saving. Mark minor edits, too, when you make them. All of this is good WP etiquette.

Start thinking big picture, rather than just adding sentence willy-nilly. You might pick a section to work on and spend some time focusing.

Keep at it! —Grlucas (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Review

I like the way this article is organized, and I find that it reads naturally from beginning to end, with logical breaks for sections. I also find that the article succeeds at being neutral and is pretty well balanced--there are lots of accomplishments listed, but Grant was an accomplished woman, or else we wouldn't be writing about her. The lead paragraph gives a good overview of the subject, but there are some spelling errors that need to be cleaned up, such as several instances of the word "women" instead of the more correct "woman." Also, while I like the phrasing in the sentence "Heralded as "a true pioneer", Ingram served on Hancock County Court of the Ordinary for 36 years," I am not sure that the accolade here is properly sourced. Shouldn't there be a note telling us who heralded her as a true pioneer? There is also a spelling error in the third sentence under the "Career" heading...the title "Aide-De-Camp" is misspelled, and it might be useful to list the name of the individual who held that position. Overall, I think that this is a good, professional job, there are just a few small things that need to be corrected for the article to truly shine. JREubanks (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@JREubanks: Good points. Also, there are citations that need correction. Folks, you should not leave obvious errors like this. Ever. If you break it; you fix it. —Grlucas (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Joshua, thank you for your help. Most of the typos have been fixed now. KLJordan (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan The sections that says "Early Life" and "Personal life and death" sounds similar to me. Should we rename them to show the differences between? If so, any ideas? I am going to work on the "Personal life and death" section this weekend and I'll be updating that section. --AutumnMM97 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@JREubanks: I agree with you that the article does follow the timeline as accurately as possible, without being confusing or seeming like something is left off. I think all of the spelling errors have been removed unless I have overlooked something. I also mentioned the "true pioneer" sentence on my peer review for the exact reason. I thought we can work on the more unreliable sources by taking them out and depend on the others sources to say the information in order to not remove important sentences. I think the works cited templates are a little off again, but I could be wrong. There are also 2 sentences that begin with "after" in the Early Life section, needs some rewording so it won't be so repetitive. Still a good article nonetheless, just needs tiny improvements. Here is the link to the rest of my peer review. C.pinkston (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The article looks good to me other then citation errors. I am trying to fix some of the errors but I am having a little trouble as well.— Taeeees (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Overall I think the article is in a good place, but I feel that the honors section may be able to be included with the career sections if this the only honor that she has had. If she has more honors than just this one which I assume she does than keeping it would be fine. Other than that everything else is solid so far and follows most of what we are doing on the other article.KHunter7 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

To prevent any repetition of points, I’ll try to bring up new personal notes that I think may need to be altered: 1. In “Early Life,” I believe there should be a comma after “Robert T. Ingram and Katherine Hunt Ingram” 2. Someone should fact check me but in the Early Life section, I don’t think “Nursing” needs to be capitalized. Furthermore, if there is record for what high school she intended, what year she graduated, and how long she was in The City College of New York, I think that would be useful information. 3. In “Career,” I think the first sentence could be restructured a better way. Personally, there are too many “in” ’s for my taste. 4. I don’t think it is needed to have her death detailed for a third time with its own title in the last section. I suggest simply removing the death parts of the last section and simply making it the “Personal life” section.Cross0023 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Thank you, Cross0023, I'm going to double check the phrasing of the article now to make sure things aren't too redundant. KLJordan (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

Images for the article

Hello, everyone, I'd like to add a picture of Judge Grant to our article. I tried looking on CreativeCommons.org but nothing came up for her. I know her image is probably copyrighted. What should I do? I would really like to contribute an image. I feel like it would enhance the article. Thanks. KLJordan (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

I also had the same issue of finding a fitting image for both articles within creativecommons and wikimedia commons. C.pinkston (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm going to look for a public domain image to contribute insteadKLJordan (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

I couldn't find a suitable public domain image either. Let's come back to images later.KLJordan (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

Has there been any luck on finding an image? I haven't been able to find one that is within public domain. --AutumnMM97 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Autumn, I actually haven't looked for public domain images since my last post on this thread. There are public domain images that have to do with law, but none of the ones I found seemed to fit the article. As for Ingram's actual likeness, we probably won't be able to find or use anything because she's only just died this year and her images are probably still under copyright. I'll try to find something later this week.KLJordan (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

Hello, everyone, I have been looking for images for Ingram but I have not been able to find anything. I suppose I could look for general images of Georgia, but I don't think that would be quite the same as having Ingram's real likeness. What do you think we should do?KLJordan (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

@KLJordan What picture were you thinking about using from Georgia? --AutumnMM97 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@KLJordan @AutumnMM97 I found an image of the courthouse she worked at. I put it in the career section. I still had no luck finding an image of her. @Cross0023 had more luck with finding one for the other article, maybe they can possibly help if not already tried. C.pinkston (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Review

The draft is coming along nicely. I am surprised there isn't already a page for Ingram. The lead is easy to understand and gives an overview of the rest of the article. The lead includes the most important information. I am impressed with the content in the career section. The article would benefit from more content on how Ingram increased voter registration and ending poverty and drug use. I realize this may not be able to be expanded because there are not sources covering these areas. The article reads well, and it follows a clear structure and is in a sensible order. The coverage is balanced and the content is neutral and definitely does not seem sided. Everything included in the article is relevant and nothing reads off-topic. The Works Cited has good, reliable sources that cover the article well. It is a well written article that will benefit from more content and images if there are any available. JRDavisjr (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)JRDavisjr (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been fixing small typos or rewording things for consistency along the way, but overall it looks great. C.pinkston (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and help, Christina, I've been editing typos too. I noticed a capitalization problem with one of our Wikilinks, but I can't seem to fix it. Can you help? Thanks.KLJordan (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

No problem! Fields of study don't have to be capitalized but I'll link it for you. C.pinkston (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, ChristinaKLJordan (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

Actually, the Wikilink was for "board of education" under her personal life and it lead to a page on board ofeducation in general, so it probably shouldn't be capitalized. My mistake.KLJordan (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)KLJordan

Article Update

Hello, so far the article looks like it is coming together nicely. I cleaned up some inconsistencies with how we're are referring to her. I also removed the honors section for the reason being that there were no other honors/awards she was given, so I moved the information that was previously in that section to "Career". I saw someone mention that earlier. I was also thinking about maybe cleaning up the lead a little bit more and making it more detailed. Brebre143 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to find some honors that could go under that section, but I didn't have any luck. I feel as if the article is lacking information in general, because of lack of creditable resources. Everything I am finding is referencing to the History Makers article or her obituary. The few creditable resources I have been able to find has already been sourced. --AutumnMM97 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@AutumnMM97 I have been finding trouble finding more reliable sources as well. I think this is the best we can do for the information that's out there. Brebre143 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Citations

@Jayla P I feel like you took my changes out. I grouped the information together where, each sentence did not have to be cited to make the article look cleaner. --AutumnMM97 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@AutumnMM97 I think she's okay. It is most likely better that we have everything cited even if the source is reused a lot, rather than letting the reader assume where we got the information from. C.pinkston (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@C.pinkston I am not saying we should allow the reader to assume where we got the information from. What I'm saying is that when a paper is written and the author uses the same source back to back they do not source it after each sentence. Instead, they summarize the information and cite it after the last sentence. Not write a sentence, source it, write a sentence, source it, etc. if it came from the same source. Does that make sense? This was the reason why I took out back to back citations. --AutumnMM97 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@AutumnMM97 What you said makes sense in an essay aspect, but I'm not sure if we follow the same rules for Wiki as well. I looked at some example pages and saw both used. I looked at the help page and the format looks different, but it is kind of similar to what we have right now. So I'm not sure which would be more correct. Maybe @Grlucas has a possible resolution? C.pinkston (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

November 21, Notes

Editors, I think this article is coming along well. Everyone should be proud of their diligent work and what you have accomplished.

Any luck with locating a CC image of Grant? Infobox could use some more info.

The lead needs a bit of work, especially at the end. This should probably be done last.

Be sure all information is germane: is her father's election important? What did she do when she lived in New York?

Why isn't Black Firsts: 4,000 Ground-Breaking and Pioneering Historical Events a more prominent reference? It's only cited once. Maybe too much content relies on one interview?

Consider add this article, when it's published, to Wikipedia:Did you know. As part of your editing work, someone could take the initiative here and submit it. The article would have to be published first, so coordinate with me.

A couple more days: the end is in sight! —Grlucas (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)