Talk:Isabelle Urquhart/Archive 1

Dates and ref names
Urquhart was American, so all the dates should be mdy format: September 5, 1891. As far as ref names, I always hate to see the dreaded ":1" and ":2", etc. I suggest using Brown489 and Dale124 so that editors can easily see which source it came from. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure the citation names and dates you are refering to were automatically generated by visual editor. I personally use mdy when I create dates, but other editors seem to change the my dates with great frequency. I have given up on taking a stand. I don't think either are a major issue here since this is Wikipedia create data. Rublamb (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green: 20-minute assessment
As requested, I'm providing a quick 20-minute assessment of this article, as per WikiProject Women in Green's support to help prepare articles for a full Good Article (GA) review. Isabelle Urquhart's article definitely looks like it's nearly ready -- a GA reviewer may request additional edits, but I'm not seeing many major issues or obstacles to a successful review. I've listed a few comments and suggestions below:
 * Prose and grammar looks pretty strong. Couple of queries: What are "utility parts"? And why did she have reservations about playing a 97-year-old?
 * Utility parts are minor characters that help to move the plot forward. The role has utility in the scene. For example, in an airport scene, Alanna and ssilvers are boarding a plane while arguing about who forgot to lock the house.  The ticket agent who takes their boarding passes is a utility part.  I added the word "small", but it could be a speaking'singing part, though it is not intended to have character development or emotional importance in the piece.  As for her reservations about playing the 97-year-old, Urquhart just said, in the interview, that as she was only 17, she was "not sure that I relished playing a nonogenarian".  Our readers will have to draw their own further conclusions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would recommend moving the "Sources" section after "References," as MOS:NOTES says that short citations should come before full book citations.
 * Right, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Earwig's copy-vio tool raises no alarms -- closest text matches are quotations (properly attributed) or short standard phrases that can't easily be rephrased. Did a spot-check of other citations, found one that seems inaccurate: "Urquhart was a popular model for cabinet cards..." (source doesn't comment on her popularity).
 * But the whole section discussed half a dozen companies that used her as a model for cabinet cards. The list could go on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Two sources may be challenged on reliability: The Cabinet Card Gallery (blog without clear author or editorial oversight) and Worthpoint (user-generated content for auction sales). These may need to be removed or replaced with stronger sources.
 * These actually show the cabinet cards; the cards themselves are primary sources. We are not relying on the veracity of the what the site says. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * A recommendation: don't link a source to Google Books if there isn't a full preview of the relevant text, as it won't help readers. It's okay if some sources are only available offline, but you'll need to make sure that you have access to them before starting a GA review.
 * I don't know who requested this review, but I am not the one bringing this to GA. I don't think I was the one who originally researched this article. If you want to go to GA, you'll need to do this work.  I do not believe that the article is ready for GA.  Unless you are undertaking to do the additional research and grunt work, I strongly suggest that you do NOT nominate it for GA review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems stable, no current edit wars. Appears to be two editors contributing major edits. If this article is nominated for a GA review, just make sure you're both on the same page when responding! :-)
 * I am not interested in taking this to GA at this time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I provided this 20-minute assessment on request from another editor. If you are not interested in taking this article to GA, that's perfectly fine, but somebody else may want to take on that task. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem, thanks. See my response to Rublamb's note below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Well illustrated with photos. The first photo in the lead section may require a more specific tag/license to show that it meets public domain requirements. If it was published only in the U.S., and if you know the source and year of publication, you can determine whether it meets the "published before 1928" criteria, which is probably the easiest one to meet.
 * Same. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have any questions about my comments, let me know. Good luck with this article! Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Alanna the Brave, thanks for the 20 minute review. Rublamb (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ssilvers, I requested this review as part of the Women in Green Around the World in 30 Days edit-a-thon. I know you have worked on this article, most importanty reviewing and enhancing the extensive expansion I made some time ago. You do not have to be part of the GA nomination process--you have already been a big help. This is something I am willing to do. Rublamb (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, very good. Now I understand what's going on. If you are willing to dig further into the sources, then by all means.  I apologize for being overly suspicious!: I have been on the receiving end of quite a few situations over the years where I had started an article and some random person thought it was pretty good and nominated it for GA, and then I was left holding the bag and had to do all the work myself, even though I had not intended to take the article to GA.  Good luck.   -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a problem--I realize my edit note about GA the other day didn't give you a heads up on the 20 minute review. I added most of the sources, so feel pretty good about taking this forward. I doubled checked--the lede photo is from a 19th century brochure and seems to have the correct license. Rublamb (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Duke red link
I have boldly swapped the red link Duke, Sons and Company to pipe to American Tobacco Company and changed name to W. Duke, Sons & Company (Washington Duke and sons Benjamin Newton Duke and James Buchanan Duke) which was the forerunner of ATC. (See also the Duke name on the Cameo cigarette packet image on the ATC article. Perhaps that is Urquhart?) JennyOz (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That's great. I was stumped as to why I couldn't find Duke & Sons in Wikipedia but didn't dig deeper. Rublamb (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Article
User:Rublamb, I just went through the history of the edits on this article, and I see that I had misremembered what had happened here. I see that you actually did much more work on this article, over a longer period of time, than I had realized or remembered. Indeed, in retrospect, you have done excellent work here, and though I doubt you will fully forgive me for being so suspicious, I congratulate you on the achievement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ssilvers thanks for the apology and recognition. @The Blue Rider and @Alanna the Brave will probably also appreciate seeing this. Rublamb (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Rublamb -- and congrats! Great work. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)