Talk:Dolly Johnson

Non-DYK feedback
Hi, and anyone else interested. I'm mainly here as a DYK reviewer, but here's some hopefully helpful feedback that doesn't affect the DYK criteria: Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I fixed MOS:REFPUNCT errors, but I wasn't systematic about it and would encourage a full pass to find the rest.
 * 2) Parts of the article go into too much detail about other members of the family, e.g. the paragraph starting with "Andrew and Eliza's first-born daughter Martha ..." and the gazetteer's description of Greeneville.
 * 3) The tense in the paragraph about the 1870 is tough. Can this all just be put into past tense?
 * 4) Winston (1928) p. 21 doesn't seem to support the content preceding citation 38. Maybe the page number is off?


 * Addressed. I think/hope. Thank you for the good notes. jengod (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green mini-review
Thank you for your work on the article,. It's a valuable addition to Wikipedia. In my opinion, it's about ready to be nominated for a GA review, but please have a look at my comments below and let me know if you have any questions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see any reason for immediate failure. (WP:GAFAIL)
 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - looks OK to me.
 * It contains copyright violations - Earwig's Copyvio Detector found some fairly high percentage matches, but when I reviewed these, they were all either attributed quotes, titles, or phrases acceptable per WP:LIMITED. I did not check for copyvio against offline sources.
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. - no such banners.
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page - no signs of edit-warring.
 * It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article - not applicable.

General comments BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the lead could probably be expanded a bit to summarise more of the article content. Have a look at MOS:LEAD and see what you think.
 * See the entries for familysearch and Ancestry.com (and similar sites) at WP:RSP and be prepared to debate the use of those source with a reviewer.
 * There are a few sources like Mitchell, John L. (1860); Scott, Samuel W.; Angel, Samuel P. (1903).; Whipple, Wayne; Longworth, Alice Roosevelt (1937).; (August 19, 1868). "Miscellaneous News Items". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle.; and some more that don't appear to be used in the article and should therefore be in "Further reading" rather than "References". I use [User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js this script] to identify these. Probably not a blocker to GA status.
 * Some of the quotes feel a bit too long. See MOS:QUOTE.
 * I'm not too sure about all of the gallery items, considering MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, but you could leave them for now and see what the reviewer thinks.
 * Text read well enough for a GA to me; no doubt a reviewer will have some specific suggestions about phrasing and other issues.
 * I haven't checked whether sources support the text; I didn't see any text that appeared to be unsupported.
 * It's not part of the GA criteria, but see WP:ELCITE for how to format the entries in the external links section.


 * Thank you!! So helpful @BennyOnTheLoose and I so appreciate you offering this and all the nifty tools like finding unused sources and the links to the guidelines. I'll work on all this stuff. Very appreciated. Best, jengod (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)