Talk:Debby Applegate/GA2

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

Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is one of three articles I'll be reviewing tomorrow, I'm familiar with the author having read her book so. Secret account 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Secret. I'll look forward to your thoughts! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I just went though the first GA review which was a few days prior to renomination. I understand where Chiswick Chap is coming from but his rationale applies for most authors/athletes and so forth who is currently active in their field. It is a valid concern, but more for a FA nomination and not a GA nom. Some minor comments.


 * "where she began a two-decade fascination" Isn't fascination a bit too "colorful" of a term, I rather reword it to something like quest
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * How did the "unusual religious environment" affected her, in particular to her work, use a primary source interview if you must
 * I'm not aware of any primary sources existing on this beyond what I've linked here, unfortunately. Is there a particular interview you're thinking of? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "She later wrote about him for her undergraduate senior thesis and made him the subject of her PhD dissertation at Yale University." made him is redundant here
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "After graduation, Applegate signed a publishing contract for a biography of Beecher." replace with "After graduation, Applegate signed a publishing contract to write a biography of Beecher." Grammar usage
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe remove another review or so to make it slightly less coatracky
 * ✅ I don't mind deleting more content if you feel that's needed, but I have to say I'm still confused as to what you and Chap mean by "coatracking" here. This essay describes inappropriately using an article as a vehicle for "biased and irrelevant material"--how do you see content about Applegate's only major work as biased and irrelevant?
 * I'd argue instead that this article clearly falls under the part of the essay, What Is Not a Coatrack: "An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability. A reader is not misled by the focus on the moon trip." To me, it's pretty obvious that Applegate's book is her "moon trip"--it's the single reason for which she is notable. which means it's not coatracking to devote the majority of the article to it.
 * Per you and Chap, however, the trimming has now brought it to the point where that content now only makes up about half the article. If you have further concerns, I guess we should take them to the BLP noticeboard. Coatracking on a BLP is a serious accusation to make against another editor (per the essay: "When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed."), and I want this put to rest. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again like Chap don't be afraid to use some extra primary sources to do some expansion, there probably be more secondary sources coming out once the Polly Adler book gets closer to being released, which the article would then most likely be updated. I'm placing this temporary on hold but I'm more lenient here in regards to sourcing.
 * I'd be happy to do this, but I'm not sure what primary sources you're referring to that you'd like me to include. Believe me, if I had such sources at hand, I would have added them already! I think Chap wanted me to try to transcribe some remarks from an audio interview she did with someone at her college; perhaps I could mine a few sentences from that, but that seems like a questionable source to base a major expansion on. Could you be specific about what you see as missing here, so I know what I'm looking for? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As an update, I just went through this interview without finding any new information on non-Beecher-related topics. The problem I'm encountering is that, as you'd expect, Applegate's interviews all pertain to her book. I have to note once again that it confuses me why you and Chap consider this a coatrack when every source we look at--whether it be primary (interviews and self-published material), secondary (news articles), and tertiary (reference works)--focuses much, much more on MFMIA than the article here does. I'd appreciate any guidance you could give me on this. Khazar2 (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Secret account 23:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and suggestions! I've implemented as many as I'm able and done my best to respond on others. Let me know your thoughts and we can work from there. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK that's fine, I was looking to see if I could find anything additional as well. Passing Secret account 23:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Terrific, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)