Talk:Linda Finch/GA2

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Starting on this one. As an initial comment it feels the lead could use a bit more, to at least mention all the level 2 sections, but the overall focus on the 1997 event seems a good reflection of the notability. CMD (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a passing note — please be sure to check that the issues from Talk:Linda Finch/GA1 have been addressed. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ All current issues have been addressed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I asked for the reviewer to check that they have, as WP:GAFAIL #5 asks to check, not for you to assert that they have. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * David Eppstein - Oh, I was confused as to who the reviewer was. Do you have any other issues for me to address?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The reviewer is Chipmunkdavis. It is not you. I do not have, and never had, issues for you to address. The issues are between the previous reviewer, you, and Chipmunkdavis. I had a request for Chipmunkdavis to check something, which you keep obscuring with your inappropriate responses. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will have a look soon, including at the previous GAN. Apologies for the delay after my initial opening, I have been unexpectedly too busy to devote proper attention to this. CMD (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The article still needs some editing for prose flow. Sentences seem quite independent from each other. The first two lead paragraphs are quite stilted. For example, the second paragraph of the lead has four consecutive sentences starting with she. The second paragraph of Early life and education staccato of short sentences. The first sentence of Business career doesn't clearly link with anything else. The final sentence of that paragraph could also use rewriting. Specific terms such as "HUD financing" should be explained or rewritten for a more general audience.
 * Writing
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Some issues came up in spot checks. "for flying lessons beginning about 1972" isn't quite a fit to the source. Presumably she practiced for awhile before solo flights, and the article establishes elsewhere she became a mother at 18, so there's a few years range. 1972 is a clear milestone in flying experience, but not a starting point.
 * Verifiability
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources used for lawsuit all seem to relate to the same lawsuit. It is perhaps best to give a bit more detail (including mentioning the Justice Department) but reduce the implication of multiple suits. Some parts perhaps read a bit promotional. For example, "Finch used the money she budgeted for lunches while working as a bookkeeper to pay for flying lessons beginning about 1972". If needed, it could be reworded, perhaps removing the detail about lunch money which seems like it could be a vague turn of phrase in the source.
 * Neutrality
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * CMD Thanks for initial items. I'll start working on those issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All current issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still seeing writing issues with this article. There's issues with repetition and flow, similar to the examples mentioned above and in the previous GAN. Some tone issues relating to transferring news article enthusiasm to encyclopaedic tone. These issues exist in the lead, but also in other areas of the article. There's a bit more than I would feel comfortable adjusting while still undertaking this GAN.

Several sourcing issues also pop up, similar to the one mentioned above. I didn't check everything in the first half of the article, and am stopping now with specific source checks, but probably worth checking the rest of the article as well.
 * "began dating a young man from the local Army base when she was 16 years old", the sources relates the age only in relation to the elopement, not to the beginning of the relationship.
 * The 1979 date for the nursing home chain idea appears incorrect, the source indicates she was already looking into it in 1978, and possibly up to a year earlier.
 * Both the source used and the newspaper clipping indicate flying was not her dream as a "young girl", but came later at some point during her teenage years. There's also no clear indication she was a teenager when she started lessons. I doubt she was given the newspaper source, which gives a later training date and indicates flying took place after her move back to Texas and her year off (back to San Antonio according to people.com)
 * Not seeing the 1991 date for the beginning of planning in the source cited.
 * Earhart records don't match the source cited.

On neutrality, I don't think simply removing completely the lawsuit mention was the right way about the issue. The sources certainly seem to agree on painting a particular portrait, talking about keeping cattle to change her house's tax status and so on. No need to include all of that of course, but the lawsuit source tone does not seem out of place among the others.

On sourcing broadness, this article seems quite good, having dug up quite a few difficult to access pieces. The main aspects seem addressed and broadly reflecting sources, while the article remains focused. The article is stable. The Frank A. Vargo images seem a bit low-quality, but given there seems to be a consistent location in the photos there's a good chance they are properly licenced.

However, unfortunately given the copyediting and sourcing items I've found, I don't think this article meets GA yet. Perhaps the GOCE could take a look, as often it's tricky to copy your own work and I note that this article is the dedicated output of mostly just two editors. Please feel free to contact me for any questions, and thanks for the interesting read, best CMD (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)