Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mamie Eisenhower/1

Mamie Eisenhower[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: In two months, no one has expressed any significant concerns with the article - certainly nothing that would necessitate a delist. Anything else can be resolved through normal editing processes, or at FAC if that's in the cards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Mamie Eisenhower for GA, but it was quick-passed. The subsequent discussion was unhelpful, so I feel it should be reassessed to confirm that it meets the standards or so I know what to fix if it does not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the article looks excellent. A few comments

history.com is not generally considered reliable. Is there a better source for her maiden name?
Not relevant for the GA criteria, but I see WP:ALTs are missing.
You could argue the Sienna College rankings are trivia. These sections are better written with secondary sources.
"Eisenhower did not enjoy the comforts that she had grown accustomed to in childhood" maybe a bit too flowery? I first read this as "she now had comforts, which she did not enjoy".
I've checked the use of the book by her granddaughter. In general, it's only used for neutral statemets (I'd be concerned if it was used for positive statements.)

I sampled about 20% of the article's prose. I'm sure a more thorough GA review would find more instances of prose that can be improved, but what I've seen so far makes me happy to say keep. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: maybe you missed my previous comments? Would you have time to address my comments? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification! The rankings weren't there when this became a good article, but I feel that they're relevant, and so far I haven't found any better sources describing historian opinion of her role as first lady. Otherwise I've addressed all listed concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.