Talk:Eliza McCardle Johnson/GA1

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

Reviewer: SusunW (talk · contribs) I'll take this one. 14:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Schneider p. 108 says he might have been a cobbler, but was an innkeeper. Young p. 191 mentions only innkeeper, but Watson, p. 116 says cobbler and part-time innkeeper. Perhaps it is better to switch the ref to Watson, or add innkeeper?
 * Weaving (shoes) is supported by source. (For the record, crazy quilts aren't woven they are a type of patchwork quilt, sewn together, but it isn't your error, it is the source's.)
 * letters under he returned do you mean until?
 * I don't see mention of alcoholism in Sanfilippo p. 232, the page ends with her happiness at her daughters' marriages. Young, p. 194 and Watson p. 117 both confirm the sons' alcoholism.
 * sworn in as the Vice President of the United States jumps straight to her arrival in August. But it is missing Lincoln's assassination and her husband's elevation to the presidency in April, Diller p. 165 or Watson p. 119, which is crucial information.
 * Johnson was not able to serve effectively source by Varon does not mention either Johnson or her daughter Martha. The statement is confirmed by Young, p. 196 and Diller p. 165
 * she remained seated while receiving guests – article; received guests while seated – source. Perhaps a bit closely pharaphrased? Maybe, she did not rise to greet her guests?
 * managed by daughter seems awkwardly phrased. Perhaps use Martha, or her daughter?
 * While living in the White House, Johnson spent her time sewing, knitting, and reading – article; spent her time in the White House sewing, knitting, and reading – source. Can you rephrase?
 * she would roam has a bit of a random wandering connotation, when in fact her visits were purposeful. Anthony, p. 204-205 says she inspected the president's clothes and kitchen preparations and Young p. 198 uses the word toured.
 * Insert comma after Baltimore, Maryland
 * buried beside him … according to Sanfilippo (no page # but search "Johnson National Cemetery") in Andrew Johnson National Cemetery
 * According to Caroli, p. 58, Johnson served as administratrix of her husband's estate.
 * In the chart, Speer add link verifies birth dates, but not death dates.
 * chart removed.


 * No source listed for Charles's information, Mary's information, or Andrew's.
 * chart removed.


 * "Andrew Johnson Papers" does not confirm birth/death dates for Robert, nor suicide.
 * chart removed.


 * How do we know when the "locket portrait" was published? This 1967 book might be the first publishing? It says on p xvii that the paintings in the pair of lockets were made when the Johnsons were in their 40s, which would put the date around 1850. I am not sure if you can use PD|Art if the artist is unknown, but the book lists no artist and states the lockets are privately held, so it makes it questionable that they were published earlier and the source book was copyrighted, so you would need to verify that it was not renewed.
 * Charles Johnson photo has only a link that goes to Wikidata, not any type of source that one could use to verify dating or whether it is in the PD.
 * chart removed.


 * Ditto for Robert Johnson and Andrew Johnson Jr.
 * chart removed.


 * Sources appear to be reliable. If you intend to take this to FA, you will need to use title case, segment ISBN's properly and consistently, etc.
 * As always, I checked every source, information as stated appears verified and copyvio free except as noted above.

Checklist
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

, once again a well-written and informative article. You may want to check with Jengod on the photos, as it appears she uploaded them from a National Park link somewhere but did not provide a link to confirm publication or copyright data. Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've addressed most of the notes. The remaining ones are things that were recently added by, who might need to weigh in here. Currently, it looks like the table of children is poorly sourced and the images don't have proper licensing. I had also previously removed a similar list of children for straying WP:OFFTOPIC from Eliza Johnson herself. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll delete all the kids! All the photos should be non-controversially public domain bc published before 1928 and the uploaded by the fed govt but not trying to mess up your good article! Hold please. jengod (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I agree with that the children are off topic for her article. Links to theirs can be provided within the text. If it's going to FA, a chart would not be allowed, typically. Looks to me as if everything is cleared with the exception of clarifying the proper tag for the lede photo. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , it's fine that you're editing the article, I just think that this particular table isn't relevant. Regarding the images, it's important to have the publication date (which isn't always the same as the date it was taken). The photographer's year of death would also work. These images are most likely public domain, but we can't be certain. For now I've removed the locket photo, though I have no objection to restoring it if either the publication year or the photographer's year of death can be confirmed., assuming my understanding of the image rules is correct, I believe that's everything. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing out the lede image works, . And yes, publication is the key. I am no expert of works of art, but the way I read PD|Art is that the artist has been dead for 70 years. If we don't know who that is, I am not sure that we can use that tag. Perhaps a commons query could answer that and it can be restored with a different tag, but based on the 1967 book, I can't confirm it was published earlier and has no copyright. Give me a few minutes and I'll pass it. SusunW (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)