Talk:Mary Surratt/GA2

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Reviewer Comments
*"She was a first cousin, once removed, of novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald's father Edward Fitzgerald." feels like Trivia. *What does "Background that was questionable at best" should either be a quote from the sourcing describing or rewritten to be factual.
 * Made small copy edit but otherwise looks the Lead to be in good shape.
 * Removed
 * Reworded
 * Why is this sentence in parentheses and why is safe house in quotes? (The Surratt tavern was being used as a "safe house" for Confederate spies,[45][60] and at least one author concludes that Mary had "de facto" knowledge.[45])
 * Punctuation changed

*"The city was also a more dangerous and morally-challenging place for her daughter, and Surratt had striven to keep Anna away from such influences, such as her husband, for years." This sentence has euphemisms (morally-challenging) and then makes a reference to her now dead husband in a way that's confusing. *"A traitor's property could be seized, and John's knowledge" John's spy knowledge or knowledge that a traitor's property could be seized? *I think you need a paragraph in Conspiracy summarizing the attacks (Lincoln, Seward, Johnson) to provide context for the next section *"The Northern press was also highly critical of her" what does this mean? *"However, Lloyd had testified that he repaired a broken spring on Surratt's wagon, which rebutted the claims." Does it though? *"Both legal teams appeared to have flaws in their cases" according to whom? *"What is most important is that the government had botched the attempt to apprehend John, Jr." most important according to whom? *Do we know how many of the 9 actually voted for execution? Was it 6, 9, or somewhere in-between?
 * "She had initially said that she wanted only lodgers..." said to whom (friends?) or where (advertisements?)
 * Dealt with that
 * Dealt with this
 * Fixed
 * Added info
 * Clarified
 * The conflicting quotes in the first paragraph of the trial section are good. Can you give a sentence to contextualize them (e.g. "Historians disagree about the controversy around Surratt")
 * I fixed this problem.
 * You removed the quotes, which wasn't my intention. Obviously if you want to remove them you can but I did think they added value just needed some context. Again your choice just wanted my intentions to be clear.
 * Removed sentence
 * I think the paragraph listing all the defense witnesses is too long and could be condensed without losing overall meaning
 * Could you tell me how the paragraph starts?
 * "The defense strategy was to impeach the testimony of the key prosecution witnesses"
 * Fixed
 * Fixed
 * No

Discussion
Can or other article editor confirm that they remain interested in completing the GA review? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was always willing to be involved. I just wanted someone else to give me a list of complaints regarding the article that I could address.--MagicatthemovieS
 * Great! I was asking because you've had to wait a very long time and sometimes editors lose interest (or leave Wikipedia). Sorry for slow response, as it didn't ping me because you didn't formally use signature and I forgot to watch this page (now corrected). I will start my read through of the article tomorrow. My process is to go section by section listing thoughts/suggestions/questions (not complaints). This can take me a couple of days to do but you can feel free to start responding at your leisure. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I've completed my read-through of the article. Given its length the list of questions/comments/suggestions is pretty short. I'm guessing I'll have some more questions once I obtain some of the sources. I will complete the image aspect of the review shortly and then will put this on hold while I obtain some of the sources for spot checking. I know you had a weird circumstance where it was basically passed and then put under review and so hopefully we can complete this review soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. Think most of them are dealt with (struck off above). I appreciate your patience on the sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all of your concerns now. If you need help with the sources, several of them are available via Google Books and can be accessed free of charge. Thanks for your help getting this to GA status! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)