Jump to content

Talk:Patsy Mink/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I will probably copy edit as I go along. Shout if I mess anything up.

Thank you so much for picking this review up Gog the Mild. I promised Maile66 I'd try to get it done for Asian-Pacific American month in May and I really appreciate you helping me keep my promise. SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick first thoughts:

  • "Mink was the first Asian-American woman to seek the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in the 1972 election" Do you mean this, or should it read 'In the 1972 election Mink was the first Asian-American woman to seek the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party'?
I mean she was the first. It happened in 1972. Let me rephrase.  Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link valedictorian. It is virtually unknown outside North America.
Really?  Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have worked in young adult education for much of my live and could have told you that it is something to do with US education; but couldn't have even hazzarded a guess at a definition.
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "segregation" to Racial segregation. In fact have a run through putting more links in. That's three I am requesting and I am only half way through the first paragraph of the lead. (Eg, "civil rights" to Civil rights movement).
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When she was refused the right to take the bar examination (due to the loss of Hawaiian residency upon marriage), Mink challenged the sexist statute" Optional: I think this works better without the brackets.
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mink's father helped her open her own practice and she became a member of the Democratic Party." It seems odd to link these two facts. (Without further explanation.
 Done (added date and "around the same time") SusunW (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she worked as an attorney for the Hawaiian territorial legislature in 1955 and the following year, ran for a seat..." Due t your North American style of comma use, this is ambiguous. Maybe 'she worked as an attorney for the Hawaiian territorial legislature in 1955; the following year, she ran for a seat... '?
 Done I just ended at "1955." and capitalized "The following year ..." SusunW (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first woman to serve in the territorial Senate, when she won her campaign for the higher house." Optional: There is a strong element of redundancy in this, but it will do for GAN.
Yes, it's redundant, but still true. One woman in a sea of dudes. I love that photo! SusunW (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was the Assistant Secretary of State" I think this should have lower case initial letters. Ie, as "the president of Americans for Democratic Action has a lower case p.
US State Dept has it capitalized as it is in the article. I've removed the word "the", consistent with how it is in the body of the article. — Maile (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not MoS compliant; but that aspect doesn't need to be for GA, so fine.
  • "Tateyama arrived in the Territory of Hawaii late in the century" Which Tateyama are we talking about?
 Done Added first name - it was her grandfather Gojiro.— Maile (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the end of Family background. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break in notes

[edit]
  • Link bridge.
I love working with you, it always makes me laugh. I am like, bridge? link bridge? Then the light dawns that you mean the card game, as it is in the article.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that in turn made me giggle.
  • There doesn't seem to be a reason given as to why her residency was questioned. I get the feeling that an additional sentence is required between these two: "To practice law, Mink needed to pass her bar examination, but when she applied her residency was questioned. Proving that she had never resided in her husband's home state of Pennsylvania, she challenged the territorial law as sexist."
This one may be hard. It's that same crap that happened everywhere—upon marriage, women lost their citizenship. But since the US had amended the national law, states used marriage against women (like black codes were used against people of color) to keep them from full citizenship. Not sure I will be able to find a source, but I'll try. SusunW (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I covered it adequately, but please advise. SusunW (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By "citizenship", do you mean national or state citizenship? (I have never heard of the latter concept, but it is the only thing that seems to make sense.)
Yes, except at the state level it is called "residency". These laws pre-Civil Rights Act, allowed states to prevent women from serving on juries, obtaining credit, managing their own health care (I once had to get permission for medical care from my grandfather, my dad was dead), voting, becoming licensed in professions, marrying, etc. Almost all civil rights in the U.S. depend on where you live and only become a federal matter if there is an Amendment to the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling. SusunW (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Passing the test, Mink became "the first Japanese-American woman licensed to practice law in Hawaii"." and "With the opening of her firm, Mink became the first Asian-American woman to practice law in the Hawaiian territory." Technically this is two different things, but it seems a lot of words for that nuance. (I had to read both twice before realising that they weren't identical.
Yes, being licensed doesn't mean she ever worked in the field. Lots of people obtain a license for whatever reason and work in another field. But, Asian-American is also a broader category than Japanese-American. Not sure you want me to do something about this or not? SusunW (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that explanation of the apparent near duplication clears it up for me.
  • "She was elected "chairman of the territory-wide Young Democrats, a group that would wield a remarkable influence over Hawaiian politics for several decades"." The MoS says "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in original).
 Done SusunW (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being employed: if the issue were sexism - no one was "willing to hire a married woman with a child." - why is "even those headed by Japanese Americans" relevant? (Yes, it's a rhetorical question.
 Done Removed "gender" as clearly there were multiple discriminating policies at play. SusunW (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She authored a bill to grant "equal pay for equal work". Would adding 'for women' help? Assuming that that was the case.
 Done Added without regard to gender, and found a clipping to confirm. SusunW (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Motions to restrict the civil rights platform made by North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin were defeated and it passed with the approval by two-thirds of the party." No mention has been made of what "it" refers to.
I added "platform to ensure equal rights and equal protection under the law to all citizens"  Done SusunW (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To end of Family and early career. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was the first bill of its kind to pass both houses of Congress in 1971" Probably needs rephrasing, as I am sure that you don't mean what it literally says.
 Done Rephrased to 2 sentences. SusunW (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frustrated by the roll-backs in the Nixon administration" Optional: "in" → 'by'.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mink entered the presidential race in 1971" I think that most readers, certainly most non-Americans, would take this to mean that she ran for president, rather than that she ran for the position of her party's candidate.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "failing to secure enough delegates to support her candidacy". Optional: It would be interesting to know how many delegates she got, out of what total.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. v US. Could you standardise?
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Public Reporter" Are you sure about the upper case T?
Yes, according to the source. Do you want me to italicize or put it in quotes? SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was just checking.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link state funeral.
 Done SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1: how was this applicable? Was John Mink not a US citizen.
John Mink was a citizen (though ironically, Patsy attended university as a "foreigner"--she wasn't). I added it because introducing the whole question of women's citizenship, a reader might want more information. Simply referring to the Cable Act seemed inadequate, as though it passed in 1922, it didn't stop being amended until 1940 when U.S. women finally got federal citizenship in their own right. As seen in Mink's case, that didn't always grant them residency rights or state citizenship. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that my preconception that the US has always been roughly as civilized as the UK is tripping me up here. Women didn't even have independent national citizenship?!?!
Nope. No where in the world in the 1920s. Laws began to be passed in the late 1920s early 1930s. Britain did not give independent citizenship to married women until 1948 (or was it 1945?) and only then because Canada and some of the other rogue parts of the empire had done so, leaving women in parts of the UK with different citizenship status than those in others. (Ooooooh, {light dawns} quite like the U.S. federal system with states). SusunW (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was right, 1948 (Canada was 1945)[1]
  • Formatting of notes: Optional: "Notes" → 'Note'.
If it doesn't bother you over much, I'll leave it as is. At some point, another note might be added. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am unable to access any of the photos sourced to the Library of Congress. Any ideas as to why?
No idea. (I had some evil thoughts about government that I won't write down :S) The ones I updated have links to archive.org so you may need to clear your cookies for that site? (I know for me, it bogs down and stops allowing me access over after 30 times) I was able to open them all. (I also guess you saw the detailed discussion on the talk page regarding the photos. There are others I'd like to use, but am unsure and don't know if Carl is around since the quarantine...)
  • Alt text for the infobox image?
Good catch. Admittedly, I didn't even notice that line had been omitted from the infobox. I have tried really hard to input this once you pointed it out to me, so cannot believe I missed it. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever all that women's lib stuff was, I have long considered it a sad mistake. Right, "To practice law ... " You use "citizenship" in one sentence, and "residency" in the one before. I am not trying to be awkward, but I don't see that you actually stated what the impediment to her sitting the bar exam was. I assume that it was not because her US citizenship was questioned? But because her "state residency" had lapsed, or transferred, when she married. Yes? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you did not mean what that says, as I have always known you to be in favor of equality (the grasshopper gets to correct the master ), but yes, all that crap that made liberation necessary was nonsense. Yes, the territorial law claimed she was no longer a resident of Hawaii because she married someone who lived in another state. I've added a sentence that hopefully clarifies. SusunW (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that sexual equality will be achieved when it is pried from the cold dead hand of the patriarchy. I don't advocate this much these days as it upsets my feminist acquaintances, who believe that one can somehow negotiate one's way to equality. A triumph of hope over experience. Whatever, to business.
My view is exactly the same as your first sentence. Negotiation has been mostly futile. SusunW (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of what you have is very interesting, but not - I think - relevant to why she couldn't sit her bar exam. So: I suggest removing "By 1940, married women in the United States were allowed to keep their own citizenship upon marriage; however, until the 1960s, legislative variations among the states, led to extremely different rights for women within the federal system depending upon their residency." And changing "The territorial law on married women had removed" to 'The territorial law of the time regarding married women had removed'. Notes 1 goes too. Or something along these lines; I'm sure you get the idea.
I disagree, as the whole point is that she fought both racial and gender discrimination in her era. I think the average reader probably would want to know why her residency was even questioned. I've modified it to make the whole citizenship/residency explanation a shorter note and edited the sentence in the text. Does that work? SusunW (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works fine. Good work as usual. I assume that this one is headed for FAC in short order? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was kind of the plan and then the whole virus thing derailed the picture part and I am just not sure if we have enough time to have a peer review and a FA review May. At least with the GA promotion, Maile66 can do her thing with DYK. As always, I am very, very appreciative of your review. I love how you always improve the article with your questions while at the same time make me laugh. Thank you so very much Gog the Mild. Can you note the check of CV? I get that it's probably really late there so if you need to wait til tomorrow, no rush. SusunW (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Nb. Copy vio has been checked, and checked, but the template above is buggy. This article has been promoted to GA because of its manifest excellence. Or do I mean destiny? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patsy_Mink/GA1&oldid=950718167"