Talk:Jean Tatlock/GA1

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

Reviewer: 凰兰时罗 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi

First of all, thank you for your work on the article. I appreciate your positive, constructive, and extensive contribution.

I offer my comments below with a disclaimer: I do not want you to make changes to the article that you don't want to make. My comments may sound terse or opinionated, but don't fall for that: in fact, I am open to discussion. So, if you disagree with something, rather than make reluctant edits (while gritting your teeth), talk to me. I'm easy to convince (or so I fancy). Moreover, I'm learning this whole process myself, so my comments are not condescending instructions set in stone, rather opening lines for a dialog.

Let's work together to make this article a GA :) 凰兰时罗 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I have expanded the introduction a little. Let me know if there are additional points that you think should be added.
 * 2) Martin (2016) has been removed.
 * 3) I have adjusted the years that her father was at Harvard and Stanford.
 * 4) I have paraphrased the quote from Bird and Sherwin, but now WP:NPOV comes into play as I am speaking in Wikipedia's voice.
 * 5) Added the suicide note
 * Hi
 * Thank you for your efforts. Two finer points that remain:
 * It seems to me that the new version of the intro might lead some readers to conclude that the suicide was the result of FBI surveillance. Maybe some minor rephrasing?
 * As to NPOV issue that you raised: Bird and Sherwin's position could be paraphrased with the lead "Bird and Sherwin noted/suggested/speculated that...", followed by their thoughts that cast doubt on suicide. You may conclude with something like "However, they admit that there not enough evidence to doubt..." or something like that. I don't want to be too prescriptive on the text/style of the section, you should have latitude in this area. Please take my example as one possible way to address NPOV issue. The key thing here is that I do not believe that there is no middle ground between a direct quote and omniscient Wikipedia voice which might compromise NPOV. There are ways you could introduce Bird and Sherwin's ideas fully, at least to greater extent that you did it so far. Thoughts? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I had tweaked the wording of the lead slightly to avoid this
 * I have rewritten the Death section. Is it acceptable now?
 * Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure that you take my suggestions wholeheartedly :). Just in case, I repeat: if you disagree with something that I write in here, please tell me, let's figure it out. If I don't make myself clear (which unfortunately happens every once in a while), please don't hesitate to ask. On the other hand, if my impression is wrong, and you are okay with my suggestions:
 * I do not see much improvement. Now the whole depression thing seems like the result of FBI actions...
 * I think that "odd" in "which was an odd thing to do if one intends to drug and drown oneself" should not come from omniscient Wikipedia voice and has to be attributed to those who find it odd. Otherwise, NPOV is at risk, because an opinion is stated as fact. So, you may want to use a formula similar to the one that I suggested above.
 * Thoughts? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's not much that can be done in the lead, as the facts have to appear in this order. I have moved her death into a separate paragraph.
 * I've removed the "odd" bit. The whole conspiracy theory is isolated in the second-last paragraph. Don't be surprised if another editor comes along and deletes it under WP:FRINGE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you mention this future hypothetical editor. Do you think that the theory deserves a mention? I thought the answer to that was a yes, because initially you had a big citation that was introducing it...
 * Of course I did! That's why I included it in the article. But I did the same in another article, and it was removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that if two accredited historians speculate about it, the theory is not fringe. I think that it's an unsubstantiated speculation that cast some small shadow on the mainstream conclusion, and this is what the current version of the article reflects. This speculation comes from a credible source, and I do not believe that there is sufficient basis to delete it entirely.
 * However, I think we already moved beyond GA criteria. As far as I'm concerned, I think that the article certifies the criteria. Thank you for your efforts! 凰兰时罗 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)