Talk:Laura de Force Gordon/GA1

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

Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Review
Hi, I'll be happy to review this article. I took a look at the article and I think this is ripe for promotion. The layout, prose, and sources look great. My review usually consists of two parts. In my first part, I will review the article's prose and post any suggestions/mistakes that need to be addressed. In my second part, I will try to go through every source and make sure the information is attributed correctly. Thanks and look forward to reviewing this! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Part 1
Hi, thank you for writing this article. Below is my GA review. I decided to make several changes myself to make it easier for you. Please check the updates and feel free to disagree with any of them or with any of my questions/comments/concerns below. Let me know if you have any questions! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 05:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Responses below in italics. Thanks for the excellent and thorough review and copyediting — a stronger article as a result! (I probably won't get to Part 2 tonight - hopefully come back to that tomorrow.) —Luis (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * – The article says she was admitted to the California bar on December 6, 1879, but there is no mention she was the second one in the state (as the intro suggests). There is a mention she was the second one for the U.S. Supreme Court, however. Please make sure the introduction/body paragraphs are correct.
 * Excellent catch. Fixed.


 * – Was it the Stockton Daily Leader or the Stockton Weekly Leader (as mentioned later in the article)?
 * It was the Weekly when she bought it; she then turned it into the Daily. Added another citation that clarifies that, but open to any suggestions on how to better represent that in the text.


 * – link to Northeastern United States
 * Feels like overlinking to me? But done.


 * – what kind of exhibitions? I usually think of art exhibitions when I see this word.
 * I think state fair-style speaking booths, but I can't find the source I got that impression from, so struck that text.


 * – Boston


 * – I would link the two U.S. states for our international readers.
 * Very fair. Done (along with Boston).


 * – I'm not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say. As a result of what? Please consider rephrasing this sentence altogether.
 * Rephrased as part of this edit. Still not sure it makes clear what I'm trying to say; suggestions welcome.


 * – according to whom? You do not have to put “X historian” or “X source” states this if you do not want to. I just want to make sure if the sources mention it as an absolute statement of fact (like the fact that she was the first female newspaper publisher in the U.S.)
 * ''I see your point re "believed"; I think I put it there because I'm personally skeptical of "firsts" where there are broad social movements plus no hard records, but obviously that's my own interpretation. Since there are at least two sources that agree about this, I removed "believed"; moved the cite to the end of the sentence to make that more clear; and added a second cite for the same proposition (though I'm not enamored of citing to other encyclopedias - curious about your thoughts on that).

''
 * – just out of curiosity, which election is this referring to? The association’s election or something else (i.e. presidential elections of 1888)?
 * Good point. Believe from context in the source that it was the fall 1888 election, which included presidential and California ballot issues, so added a link.


 * – Should this bill be redlinked per WP:REDLINK? I will leave it up to you.
 * Huh, interesting suggestion. Done! Perhaps my next project ;)


 * – Please add publisher.
 * Done.


 * – Please add publisher and date of publication.
 * Done, though it's a slightly odd publisher - I believe she basically runs the site, and it's not a publication per se but a transcript of a speech. In any case, I added a cite to the part of her book that discusses the same material, with the only omission being that the book doesn't specify what Article the relevant Section was a part of..

Part 2
''Good catch. I think I extrapolated from another source, but can't find it now and didn't cite it, so... away it goes.'' ''The constitutional change (all jobs) and the statute (limited to lawyers) were different things, which I think the Penn State source confuses. I've tried to clarify a bit in the article here. Further suggestions welcome.'' ''Earlier versions of this article (before my involvement) relied very heavily on the PSU article; I've tried to remove it everywhere I can, to be honest. This finally pushed me to remove it altogether.''
 * - According to the source, she wrote for the Daily Democrat until 1878, but I'm not sure if it actually says she "left journalism" after that. You mentioned later that she used her position as a journalist to lobby and stay in touch with lawmakers/the governor.
 * - According to this source (used later), this bill granted women the right to practice any profession (not just law). From my understanding, she pushed for the inclusion of a section in the Constitution that granted women the right to practice any profession. Which one is right?

''I honestly hadn't considered FA. I do like that source, and the annotated biography is great, but I only came to it late in the game - will consider at some later date!''
 * - Not a requirement for GA. Just wanted to say that there is a lot of info on her early life in this source. If you ever want to promote this to FA, definitely use it.

''It's quite on-topic, but the source initially felt so speculative to me that I was somewhat reluctant to include it. On re-reading, it's stronger than I thought, so including.''
 * - I think it would be great if you can mention why she would say this. According to the source, during this time the lack of "male protection" via divorce was a taboo so saying she was a widow was the "most acceptable explanation". If you think it might be off topic, feel free to add it as a footnote (this bullet point is just a suggestion).

''Tracing the sources to flesh it out, the paper's claim is... not really supported by their citations? e.g., that paper goes to another paper, which goes to a book, which doesn't actually say what either paper says about the book. I'm sure it is supported somewhere, but not very inspiring, I'm afraid.''
 * - the source mentions the large audience in attendance, the impact this had for future suffragist organizers in California, nor the fact that she did this speech independently from the Spiritualist movement.

I'm not finding anything but will perhaps make another pass soon.
 * If you have more info on her Independence Day speech of 1880, that would be a great addition!


 * According to this source, she was also an officer of the Pacific Coast Press Association.

Added, though did not hyperlink as I'm not sure it is the same organization (nothing I've seen in other sources suggest she was an Adventist).

Added the Sacramento Bee part; there's a whole thing to be done about the speaker's circuit but that's not going to happen tonight - perhaps as an FA push.
 * She also spoke strongly for the Democratic Party, and was a correspondent for the Sacramento Bee. Feel free to add these facts too.

''Great catch - I removed the more firm language from the body of the article a few months ago, but did not catch the categories. I'll remove them momentarily. That said, I think we need a better title than "Legacy" for that section - her legacy is that women can vote and practice law; 75+ year later speculation about her sexual orientation does not a legacy make. No great suggestions yet, though.''
 * I saw that there are two categories that make an absolute statement of fact that she was a lesbian. From my understanding, this is not proven. Please let me know what you think of this and how we can work to improve this.
 * On further thinking, I did not delete the categories - I assume there is policy on that sort of thing and would like to search for that first, given the delicacy of that subject. If you know of such and can point me at it, great, else I'll take a look for it soon.


 * Thank you for addressing the points above. All other GA requirements check out – congratulations! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 01:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)