Talk:Eilley Bowers/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC) This is a good article, well-researched, referenced, stable and neutral. Images appear to be in order. Specific queries:[reply]

Not sure of the better wording, but can something be done about the repetition of "returned" here: "For a short period afterwards Alexander returned periodically, but in 1858 he returned permanently to Salt Lake City for unknown reasons".
Why the plural/possessive Bowerses/Bowerses'? Should it not simply be Bowers / Bowers'?
Near the end of the article the following appears: "...in return for the $14,000 she and Sandy Bowers had donated to support the Union cause in the Civil War and to finance the 1860 Paiute War..." There is no previous mention of her/their involvement or funding of these significant events. If such support is mentioned in the sources at all (other than in the context of the later search for compensation), it should be in the article at an earlier stage.
I'm happy the article's scope and depth meets the GA standard, but found it difficult to reconcile the quote saying she "is one of the most researched, written and talked about women in Nevada history" with the fact that none of the bibliographic items are about her. As I say, not an issue for GA, but it made me curious. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. It's a bit clumsy, but it's a bit of a hard thing to describe—he moved away, but used to keep coming back to visit and then suddenly stopped coming back for reasons unknown.
The plural of a name ending in -s is name-ses, so the plural of "Bowers" is "Bowerses". Think of Keeping up with the Joneses.

For some reason I had in my mind that such endings were a vulgarism. Odd. You are, of course, correct. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any source for the original donation (although a primary source presumably exists in the form of a receipt in military records somewhere)—it only seems to be mentioned in the context of her later efforts to get it back.
I find that quote dubious as well; having done quite a bit of digging, I can't find any biography of her longer than the single chapter in More Than Petticoats, and for "one of the most researched, written and talked about women in history" there seems a quite significant lack of research, writing and talk about her. However, that quote's from the Women's History department at the University of Nevada (original source here), not just a local enthusiast expressing their opinion; I think it's significant enough to warrant inclusion, as it demonstrates that at least some academics consider her significant. It may be a case of biggest-fish-in-a-small-pond; Nevada history is dominated by mining, Mormons, military and the Mob, all traditionally male preserves, so it may be that other women are even less researched. – iridescent 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's all good. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]