Talk:Jessie Gillespie Willing

WiG 20-minute assessment
, thanks for your work on this article. My impression from this brief look is that the source material is rather sparse, but that a solid job has been incorporating it. I believe this is not far from GA status, but a few notes follow. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have followup questions. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is some flowery language in the article that is reminescent of an obituary or similar. Many of these should simply be pruned; in other cases you may wish to attribute a brief segment to a source inline. Examples include "foremost silhouette illustrator" (who considered her this?) "perhaps most well-known" (by who?) "well known for finding new artistic talent", "noted artists", "memorable illustrations", etc. This may be the biggest barrier to GA status; encyclopedia articles are generally required to be in plainer language. " recognition of 32 years of selfless devotion" should almost certainly be quoted.
 * The number of her illustrations listed is excessive, I'm sorry to say. While I can appreciate that an aficionado would like a complete list, the general reader isn't interested, and it falls foul of WP:NOTCV and WP:NOTDIR, especially when you are relying on the primary sources rather than a bibliography of sorts. I suggest trimming heavily, and possibly adding a summary.
 * The lead is a little brief. If she was known for her work with the girl scouts, this work should be summarized in a sentence or two.
 * It strikes me as odd that a lot of material that I would consider part of her career is in different sections. I would suggest subsections within "career" or retitling the latter as "illustration career", but this is largely a matter of editorial discretion.
 * I have tagged one unsourced statement. Essentially everything in the article needs to be cited.
 * Finally, if the book listed in further reading has content about this person, I strongly recommend using it. The material as it stands is perhaps just sufficient to meet the "broad in its coverage" criterion, but a little more would seal the deal.