Talk:Annie MacDonald Langstaff/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 13:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Eddie891 Talk Work 13:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll take this on throughout this week.

comments
I've lightly c/ed the article, feel free to disagree with any or all of my comments that follow. Overall, great work!
 * are census records reliable? see WP:PRIMARYCARE, which states that "Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." I'd think the census falls in that category.
 * Just as it may be difficult to determine if a subject in a newspaper article, journal article or book is the subject? One weighs the evidence, evaluates it based on what else is known — hardly "impossible" (in fact, I would postulate that that statement in the guideline is completely false. It may be impossible would be more accurate). The McGill Law Library says she was "born in 1887 in Alexandria, Glengarry County, Ontario" and Bergeron says "Née en Ontario le 6 juin 1887, elle épouse Samuel Gilbert Langstaff en 1904". There are precisely two births in that place in 1887, except the other one died at birth. The one who did not die, was born on 6 June. The record given shows the parents names. The Law Library article says she graduated from Prescott (Ontario) High School and the The Windsor Star 1914 says she was a native of Prescott and married at 17. Searching Prescott residence for 1887-1904, only one entry is returned and that person is the same age and has the same parents as were listed in the birth record from Alexandria. There is only 1 Annie MacDonald who married in Prescott in 1904. Per the marriage record, she was 17 and had the same parents as listed in the birth record. She also married Gilbert Samuel Langstaff, her later surname and the spouse's name contains all the names given by Bergeron. I think you see that each of the records confirms the information in the previous record. No conclusions are required, no original research. The records say what they say and it all works together to confirm each record refers to the same person. So yes, I think the records are reliable, based on an evaluation of their totality. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the response. While I understand what you're saying, I've never come across census citations in a ga before, so I hope you don't mind that I've asked this question at WP:RSN for a second opinion. It's nothing against you or the article, I just want someone more qualified than myself in this aspect to comment. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not remotely an issue. Our goal here is to provide good information, not fake news SusunW (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "graduated from Prescott High School " not specifically cited in the text
 * added per Kochkina. ✅ SusunW (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "the law excluding women from practicing law" was there a specific law excluding women? Clarify, because earlier you day that there were no barriers to her admission; this seems like it would be a big barrier.
 * The difference is that she could attend school, i.e. no barriers to education; but she couldn't practice/work as a lawyer. (The source pretty much makes clear that there wasn't a law which said women were barred specifically from working as lawyers, but the court interpretation of the law was it intended to exclude them) SusunW (talk)


 * "bachelor of arts" here you don't capitalize the degree, but you capitalize "Bachelor of Civil Law" above. Standardize
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "She wrote Canada's first French-English/English-French law dictionary in 1937. " seems out of place here. maybe place somewhere else in the lede?
 * Moved it to before the sentence "In 1940, when women in Quebec won the right to vote ..." SusunW (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "her husband separated" in the lede, you say her husband abandoned her
 * ✅ Added Latur who says he left her "Madame Langstaff a en outre élevé seule sa fille, son mari ayant quitté le domicile familial." SusunW (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Her husband migrated in 1905 to New York City, with another woman whom he claimed to have married in 1904" I thought it was unknown where he was
 * She didn't know where he was. Records show otherwise. He was 22 per their marriage record, name was listed as Gilbert Samuel Langstaff. A search for his name with a birth date from 1881-1883 results in a birth record, showing the same parents as his marriage license with a birth date of 14 October 1882 and the name Samuel Gilbert Langstaff born in Grenville County, Ontario. The 1901 census for his father in that same place shows his parents had only two children, Samuel G. age 18 and William age 16. The New York Naturalization shows that exact birth date and born in Ontario, as well as states his wife's name is Nellie, they arrived 1 November 1904. The census record shows Samuel G. and Nellie, had been married 5 years in 1910. He is the only Samuel or Gilbert Langstaff born between 1881 and 1883 who appears in any record from 1882 to his death in 1938 in New York. Again, no OR required. The information in each record confirms the information in the other records. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "With his encouragement in 1911, she wrote to McGill University's Faculty of Law" was the encouragement, the writing, or both in 1911? I'd recommend rephrasing as "With his encouragement, in 1911 she wrote to..."
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "she should begin attending lectures" the source says that he said "It would be better for her to attend the lectures" and that she began attending with "no serious objections having materialized". To me that does not read the same as 'should'. Perhaps "she could begin..." Maybe you could clarify on what you think would be the best phrasing? If you think it's fine as it stands, I'll defer to you
 * To me could only means it was possible for her to do it. It would "better for her" indicates that there is some compelling reason, i.e. should. However, perhaps "ought to" is an acceptable compromise? SusunW (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the perfect word for it in my mind! Eddie891 Talk Work 18:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Not leaving the matter up to public outcry" that's very nice writing, but I'd suggest gutting it, as it doesn't really contribute to the article.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "On New Year's Eve " what's the significance of the holiday? If none, I'd recommend just saying 31 December.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Vowing to continue the fight" again, that's very nice writing, but I'd suggest gutting it, as it doesn't really contribute to the encyclopedic aspect article
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "next legislative session of the National Assembly of Quebec" add what year/month the next session would be as it's a new section and will help readers keep years straight.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "later Jacobs & Phillips and still later Phillips & Vineberg" do you have years at all?
 * Really surprisingly hard question. This says Lazarus Phillips joined Jacobs' firm after serving in World War I (p. 53) Eureka! 1st, 1920; 2nd 1945. ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "in Quebec was suspended" suspended by whom? presumably the advocates or the legislature?
 * Source doesn't say specifically. Were I to guess, "everyone", makes sense. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Becoming the assistant to the other senior partner, Senator Lazarus Phillips" do you have a year for this?
 * Leger, in The Gazette says she was his assistant for 60 years, but that is impossible, as she retired in 1965 and he didn't join the firm until 1920. Mossman, p. 110 has a quote from Lazurus Phillips that says she was Jacobs' "alter ego" until his death and continued to serve as his [Phillips'] "right arm" until she retired. He doesn't actually say when she began to work for him, whether she served them both at any time, or whether she served one after the other. Logic says she assisted whoever needed her, when they needed her, but there isn't a source that says that, that I am aware of. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine Eddie891 Talk Work 18:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "her Canada's first woman flier" maybe quote the article directly ("First Canadian woman toy fly")
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "should be allowed to do the same" implies that women should be allowed to work in women's occupations. perhaps you mean "should be allowed to work in men's occupations"
 * ✅, changed it to read "be allowed to work in whatever field they wanted" SusunW (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "both languages" I know it sounds redundant, but maybe clarify which languages this refers to...
 * ✅ (and yes, it sounds redundant ) SusunW (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "gave its approval" clarify if through a bill, which I assume it is...
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Unfortunately for Langstaff, the law required that candidates" MOS:UNFORTUNATELY, be careful of editorializing. While we can all sympathize with Langstaff's struggle, the article does seem to border on editorializing in a couple places (most of which I think I cut out in my c/e).
 * Changed it to say impacting Langstaff. ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "should have a Bachelor of Arts " if it was just 'should have', why did that matter?
 * source says it was a "prerequisite" removed should. ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Annie MacDonald Lanstaff Workshops" perhaps you mean Langstaff?
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Later it would go on display" when, then perhaps rephrase as "It later went on display in ...."
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review. Ping me if I need to do anything else after you have reviewed my answers. SusunW (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for all your work, and the article is very nicely done. I spot checked the references, no problems emerged, prose is fine, there's no copyvio, images are all appropriate and licensing is fine, so I'll place this on hold pending a second opinion on the sourcing. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, just let me know if I need to do anything else. It was a pleasure working with you. SusunW (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , We got someone saying they think it's fine in the context, and that's enough for me. Happy to pass. Great work! Eddie891 Talk Work 11:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've said that on here for years. Context matters. I really appreciate your help with the article. She's my oldest nomination still pending, so am glad to have her done. SusunW (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)