Talk:Lila Meade Valentine/GA1

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

Reviewer: Newtack101 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

General comments LEAD
 * "When Valentine's legislative efforts proved unsuccessful at the state level, she focused her attention on the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, seeing it become law shortly before her death" --> Did she do anything particularly notable that could be touched on here?

EARLY LIFE
 * Ref 7 goes to the main Hollywood cemetery homepage, not a page about our subject.
 * Ref 9 establishes that Richard Hardaway Meade established the Meade & Baker Apothecary, but not that Lila was his daughter. Therefore, I think another reference to establish the connection is needed.
 * "Valentine was an avid reader and spent hours in her father's library. Her family was well-off and provided her with a formal education commensurate with her societal standing, but she wished to attend college. However, at the time, most universities in Virginia did not admit women, and Valentine would never go on to receive a degree." --> there are two refs given for the last sentence. Is it possible to inline either of these refs, to make it clear which source the information is coming from? Also, I may have overlooked it, but I don't see where either source explicitly states she never received a degree.
 * "Valentine challenged societal conventions of the time by not using her married name, Mrs. B.B. Valentine, when writing letters." --> the ref establishes that she did in fact send letters under her maiden name, but not that she did this specifically to challenge social conventions. That part part needs to be cited or removed. It would also be helpful to state specifically which name she did write under.
 * "She and her husband had a stillborn child in 1888 but had no surviving children. She never fully regained her health after the birth and a subsequent surgery; she suffered attacks of indigestion and migraines for the remainder of her life" --> again, it would be preferable to move one of these citations in-line, if possible. It appears the virginia.gov source covers everything but the indigestion and migraines detail. Also, for a journal source, please cite the specific page number you're referencing in addition to the span of the full article. It appears the specific page number for this citation is 473.

The last two paragraphs in this section are one sentence each. Why not combine them to one paragraph?

Looking forward from here, I see that all of the citations are grouped at the ends of each paragraph. This is out of compliance with the MOS (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation). Please address the issues above, and provide inline citations throughout, and I will be happy to continue the review. I would like to see the article pass as it's an important subject, and I'm a native Richmonder :) I'm placing it on hold for now. Newtack101 (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi,, and thanks for your review. The nominator expressed elsewhere they may not have sufficient time to pursue this nomination, but depending on how much needs to be done, I may be able to fill in. :)
 * I'm happy to copyedit, clean up formatting/citations, etc., but probably don't have the capacity myself to do things like track down new sources or really dive into the content of the existing sources. Perhaps you could scan the article as a whole and let me know what you think? If you think it's in good enough shape that we can push it past the GA criteria without nontrivial additional research, I'd be happy to follow up based on your comments so far in the next couple days. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Yes, I think the article could probably pass without having to track down new sources. The main issue is the lack of inline sources. I have a small concern about some light interpretation of sources that, while probably correct, may not be fully supported (such as the sentence about challenging naming conventions). I don't mind removing something like this myself, though I'd hate to remove something that could be easily cited by someone more knowledgeable on the subject than myself. That said, someone could always add the cut material back in with the appropriate source whenever they have the time. Newtack101 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)