Talk:Ethel Maynard/GA1

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 00:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Will review, shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Suggest replacing gendered language such as "committeeman" or "chairman", at least when talking about women
 * "for eighteen years" from when to when?
 * "to the Democratic National Convention" maybe add a description of what the convention did?
 * "originally established by Governor Samuel Pearson Goddard Jr. before being disestablished leaving " dates?
 * I've lightly copyedited, can you take a look and see that the changes are acceptable? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * has more detail that you can add. I wouldn't consider reliable by itself, but it is likely a good starting point. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick comments. I am okay with the copyedits you have done, I will try and find the dates for the commission in Newspapers.com and get back to you on that, sadly there is most likely no way for me to find out the dates for the eighteen years part, and lol it is just a force of habit to write "committeeman" and I just fixed the error. As for 3 I got it as a result from here which is an official government website. Jon698 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I found the establishment and disestablishment dates of the women's commission. Can you update me on your position on the article? Jon698 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, all of a sudden I'm swamped with real life work and too busy to finish reviewing this today. I'll get to it tomorrow-- Sorry! Eddie891 Talk Work 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good so far. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to incorporate more info from and  and to see if  has any resources to get information though again I don't think that the state library of arizona blog is reliable by itself. As the article stands, it is not comprehensive enough to become a GA, but it's close. Placing on hold. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinion on the article now? Jon698 (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is short, but as far as I can tell comprehensive. It's reasonably well written, well sourced (to reliable sites and everything I checked lined up), images look good, no evident copyvio or close paraphrasing. Passing. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)