Talk:Constance Dallas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 12:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I will review this over the next few days. Vanamonde (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * All prose issues have been addressed
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Sources correctly formatted
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Sourcing concern has been addressed.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * All information is cited.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * No copyvios that I can find.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No extraneous material
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No issues with neutrality
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Licensing seems to be correct.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Specific comments

 * Early life
 * Is it not conventional, in the case of a marital name change, to say something like "Dallas was born Constance Hopkins Snow or..."?
 * Yes? I think it is. Changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Anna" should be "Brooks" should it not?
 * Yes, fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's another instance.
 * Fixed that too, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Any information on her siblings?
 * Not much, but I added their names. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Or about why they returned to the US?
 * The sources don't say, unfortunately. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "the Philadelphia family" I think "a Philadelphia family" would be more accurate.
 * Either is correct. I changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Politics
 * "they elected all four councilmen allotted to the 6th district" Something odd here. The republicans are not the only voters, surely.
 * Reworded it to clarify. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we might need a sentence explaining the electoral system here; most folks will be unfamiliar with a group of candidates running for more than one seat.
 * Yes, added. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The quotes opening and closing the first paragraph seem to be at odds with each other. I'd rather they were collected at the beginning of the paragraph.
 * I'm not sure what you mean here. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Dallas became involved in politics in the late 1940s. "My life in the outside world began after I was 40," she said in a 1979 interview" is at the beginning, and "She later said that she was not interested in politics at the time, and only ran when mayoral candidate Richardson Dilworth assured her that she would not win." is at the end of the paragraph. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't read so well. I'd suggest merging those sentences that I have highlighted, saying something like "Dallas became involved in politics in the 1940s. "My life in the outside world began after I was 40," she said in a 1979 interview". However, she wrote in 1979 that she was not very interested in politics at the time; though she ran for city council in 1947 she only did so when Dilworth assured her she would lose." And then go on to say "She was asked to run by..." etc. Does that make sense?
 * OK, I've rearranged things along those lines. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The "first woman on the council" is repeated in consecutive sentences, so I'm wondering if you could just remove the first sentence.
 * Yes, done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think the second instance now needs a tweak to make sense: "She was the first...which brought challenges.." or something like that.
 * " organization Democrats with reform-minded independents" This is also an issue elsewhere, but let's discuss it here. To a person with no knowledge of Philadelphia politics, or the history of the democratic party, "organization" and "reform" mean nothing in this context. What did the organizationists stand for? What did the reformists want to change?
 * I added some details on the reform movement. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "By 1954, however, Democrat James Hugh Joseph Tate and others in Council attempted to weaken the civil service reforms of the new charter by allowing city employees to be active in party politics." slightly confused by this. I thought the charter was passed before the election? In which case, what does it have to do with conflict between the two factions of the winning coalition?
 * The Tate faction was trying to reverse some of the charter reforms. Clarified in the text now, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "blaming management connected with the former ruling party machine." I'm not certain what this means.
 * Clarified. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Dallas's major success" why was it her major success?
 * Clarified to say that she sponsered it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Images
 * The licensing for the single image checks out. I'm wondering if there is any image related to the city council that could be used to illustrate it.
 * Nothing good. I hope to take one next time I get a chance to take the City Hall tour. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Business career
 * Content is fine, but I think "later life" would be a better title: only a sentence or so is about her business career.
 * OK, fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * I'd much prefer "United States politician" to "American politician". I know it's conventional, but this is one of many instances where convention undermines our effort at being an encyclopedia with a global perspective.
 * Since Americans identify themselves as "American", I think that's the best way to do it and it's consistent with other articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, given that "American" is used in several other contexts as well; and given the common use of "North American" and "South American", this is a problematic convention. It is particularly evident when writing about Latin America as I do, and a lot of the ideologues there will use "America" to stand for what we call Latin America. I cannot compel you, though.
 * As I've mentioned above, "reform" without further context is a bit of a weasel word. What reform?
 * I think the edits I mention above should do the trick, but let me know if more clarification is needed. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the reform in question seems to be quite straightforward: shifting power from a council to a mayor: I think you could afford to mention it in the lede.
 * OK, added a brief explanation. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * I'm a little uncertain about the Brandt source; the publisher looks rather dodgy. Do you have prior experience with it?
 * I looked into it before using it, too. The author was a managing editor at Newsday, a major American newspaper, and the book was well-received by legitimate book review outfits, like Kirkus. That was good enough for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do the newspaper.com links need "subscription required" tags ?
 * Never used them before, but I'll add them. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

General comments

 * This seems a generally well written and well sourced article. I mostly have just minor prose quibbles, which should be sorted out easily enough. Vanamonde (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that this is a short article, I just want to confirm that you've added all the readily available content.
 * I wish there were more! But this is all I've been able to track down. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done with my comments for the moment; i'll leave you to deal with them. Vanamonde (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My edits are complete. Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns. Thanks for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Most things are done: the minor clarification in the lede is all that remains, and then I can pass this. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * All my concerns have been addressed, happy to pass this. Vanamonde (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)