Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA3

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

Nominator: 12:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: HistoryTheorist (talk · contribs) 02:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I look forward to reviewing this article. Depending on my schedule, a full review might not come until next weekend, but I hope to review this article in bits and pieces over the week. This review will focus on making original research issues and the other MOS details Airship mentioned, as I trust (but will verify) that the other aspects they checked remain up to GA standards. ❤History Theorist❤  02:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

General comments

 * Could you provide a digital copy of source #2 please? (I might end up wanting digital copies of all online sources you provided, so be prepared).
 * Actually, if you are able to, could you please email me or leave a message on my talk page with quotes or digital versions of all offline sources?
 * School means that this review is taking more time than intended, but I hope to complete it soon.

Early life and education

 * I don't know what reference #3 shows for you, but I'm not seeing anything about Niedfield's father being descended from German immigrants and converted from Lutheranism to Catholicism as a young man. All I'm seeing is a record of Niedfield's birth and death dates along with a listing of her parents.
 * Ref #4 verifies that Joseph was a firefighter but does not verify that he served in the army during WWI. You're going to need to add another reference or remove it all together.
 * I assume that Majorie Niedfield does show up in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden Record, but could you provide me a full quote? The preview on Google Books is acting up and I can't properly view it.
 * I did find this which does verify that she worked as a nurse, but doesn't directly verify that she got a BS in nursing. Alternately, I could modify the text to say that she was a registered nurse.
 * Ref #10 only verifies her entering MMS as a postulant and nothing else. Do you have a ref that could back up the rest of the claims?
 * Ref #12 doesn't directly support with a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry, magna cum laude, nor Niedfield took her perpetual vows on August 15, 1945, and her final vows a year later on August 15, 1946.
 * Ref #13 doesn't support It was then known as the Catholic Colored Clinic in Atlanta, and later as Southwest Atlanta Hospital, now closed nor the 1947 date.
 * Do residencies qualify you as a surgeon? Not super knowledgable about medical school, so please inform me. However, the sources cited don't make it clear that the residency qualified her as a surgeon, so please clarify.

Medical service in India and Bhutan

 * Ref #21 verifies little beyond where Nieldfield worked. I think one of the other refs you cited inline might also help back up your claims.
 * Check ref 23 - doesn't seem to verify hospital's services

Other medical service and legacy

 * The MoS doesn't exactly smile on one-sentence paragraphs like the last paragraph in the article. You could try consolidating it into the second to last paragraph, but it doesn't exactly fit well, in my opinion. It might just be better to remove the information all together, unless something came from that student petition, but it's your choice to leave it in or not.

Pics

 * Not an expert on copyright or anything, but just to clarify, did William Altoff say that the pictures could be used on Wikipedia? I assume he did, but I just want to double check

Sorry for not getting onto this review faster! I was busier than I anticipated and thus haven't had much time to check this article. These are all the issues I've picked up on now; I may find more later and I'll add them to the review page. I'm going to put the review on hold and I'll give you 7 days to start improving the article. After that, we can reassess. The article is pretty well-written overall, but I think Airship's concerns are legitimate in terms of original research. Maybe I'm missing something and I'd love to be proven wrong because this is a pretty sweet article. ❤History Theorist❤  03:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for spending so much time on this! I'm really honored. And yes, I learned a hard lesson with this one. Here's why that under-sourced material is there. I found a relative of hers on Ancestry who was excited about the prospect of a Wikipedia page, and who gave me the photos (and yes, I got his permission in writing to put them on Wikimedia Commons, which I'll share with you in a grouped set later), but he also gave me family details that I then attempted to back up with third-party sources so they wouldn't be original research. That was a mistake, because it gave me extra work to do. I have learned after this article to only use the third-party sources and never deviate, not even when charming relatives come forward with wonderful facts, because the sourcing is too iffy. I'm a researcher and should have known that, but live and learn. I apologize for making more work for you. My solution for now will be to delete the more lightly sourced stuff or maybe put it in a section called family lore if that's acceptable. I also have better photos from her religious congregation now, so I'll add those. All of them, family and congregation, are happy that this is going forward, but in the future I'll remember not to let their joy undermine the strong relationship between fact and citation. Fortunaa (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you should just ask them to write a book for a well-respected publisher and there's that! (JK) I'll have to take a look at the modifications when you make them, but the chances of this article passing GA are kinda low. Standards are standards and I gotta uphold them, even if it brings me sadness to do so. However, I'm totally rooting for this article to become a GA and would be happy to help you improve it. ❤History  Theorist❤  02:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Failing for Now
It pains me to do it, but because improvement seems unlikely to happen, I'm gonna fail this GA nom. The article definitely has GA potential, but because a good chunk of content relies on unpublished oral sources not listed inline, it does not meet GA standards for original research at this moment. Future improvements addressing concerns could definitely merit a re-review. ❤History Theorist❤  20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)