Talk:Mary Carpenter/GA1

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

Opening comments
Beginning review. References look OK, but I do worry about the completeness of the article as a whole; some style points also. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This article had some way to go before it can be declared a good article, but the challenges are not insurmountable. 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead section needs a re-write; the rest of the prose leaves a feeling of needing a thorough read-through for consistency (capitalisation in particular). There are external links in the body of the article; the See also section sticks out like a sore thumb - is it entirely necessary?
 * I have rewritten the lead, I hope it is much improved. Which capitalisation worries you? the only external links are to downloadable works by Carpenter - I thought that they wee OK, have seen in many other articles. See also section, I thought those links relevant. The wikisource link should also be in that section. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would remove the external links from the works section, put that above the see also section (which is looking more in proportion now with the rest of the article). I think you've fixed the capitalisation. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the EL, and added an EL to works in the EL section. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All fine now. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No major concerns here; however, Early life, paragraph one, and "After her father's death in 1840..." (Teaching, paragraph 1) should be referenced in some fashion. A wider range of sources would also be appropriate; you should consider de-linking the publishers / being more accurate ('history.ac.uk'?) and get rid of the caps in the last ref. No need for "Ltd" in publisher's name.
 * I have referenced those. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Duly looking much improved. You should accredit 6 months in India fully in one of the refs, however. And what about "After her father's death in 1840, ..."? - Jarry1250 (t, c)
 * I have referenced those and accredited th 6 months in india
 * Yes, looking much better. Maybe the ref formatting is a little inconsistent (it comes with well sourcing articles, alas) but that's not something we care about at GA level. It's now well sourced, so yes, all fine. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I would like to see - and I think it is quite possible to write - a little more than at present. At the moment, it feels like an outline piece of an already narrowly defined topic, something I think it inherits from the 1911 piece. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, and should not be such constrained. The best example of this is the Europe and America paragraph, which invites many questions about what exactly it was that she managed to accomplish. In India: "many of her proposed schemes" and in Europe and America: "many of the reforms" - what reforms? what schemes? You're going to have to sing her praises (in the form of NPOV statements of fact) a little more than that ;).
 * I hope the extensive re-write has addressed those concerns. Jezhotwells (talk)
 * Oh yes, much better. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It would be nice to have a little more about the criticism - 'anti-Catholic' seems a little generic. Who were the critics? Did they have their own axes to grind?
 * Can't really reference the critics directly, there was a passing reference in the Madge Dresser article, so I have removed that statement. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it has to be done. Fair enough. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Unless the photographer(s) are notable, no need to attribute them in the captions. By the way, those images could do with a bit of Photoshop'ing. I might do it myself, or ask any of the Wikipedia guilds to lend a hand.
 * I have done some work on the images and adjusted the captions. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, much better. I've moved the plaque image to the right, per MoS. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 'On hold: let's give improving the article a go first. The major points are listed above, minor ones should become obvious over time. Jezhotwells, go get someone else to read it (and to help!) - it's clear you've put a lot of work in so far. Or 20 people, or 50. Fresh eyes would definitely help.
 * 'On hold: let's give improving the article a go first. The major points are listed above, minor ones should become obvious over time. Jezhotwells, go get someone else to read it (and to help!) - it's clear you've put a lot of work in so far. Or 20 people, or 50. Fresh eyes would definitely help.

Feel free to message me in order to prompt more feedback. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Update
I've replied above and tweaked some of the ratings. Definitely moving in the right direction, particularly on the coverage front. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy with it now. It's come a long way since the beginning of the review, and it now deserves to be called a good article. Congratulations! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)