Talk:Rose Cleveland/GA1

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

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 06:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Good day! I intend to review this article. Thank you for your work on it thus far. --Generalissima (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello . It's been about a week since you began this review, so I just wanted to check in. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the delay! I started but had a significant amount of work pile up and was planning on submitting it this evening. Generalissima (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Image licensing

 * File:Rose Cleveland.jpg
 * Public domain due to age, no issues.


 * File:Rose Cleveland, before 1918 (cropped).jpg
 * Public domain due to age, no issues.


 * File:III Cimitero Inglese, Bagni di Lucca, Italia 3 (2).jpg
 * CC BY-SA 4.0 license, no issues.


 * File:Rose elisabeth cleveland, gravure (cropped).png
 * Public domain due to age, no issues.

Lede
Accurately summarizes text of article. No claims not made elsewhere. Reads and flows well. Looks good!

Early Life
Looks good, no complaints.

Acting first lady of the United States
This is a very interesting section but there's a couple areas that seem to need improvement.


 * "To this end, she held a reception in the Blue Room."
 * One reception? Multiple? If one, specify a date if sourceable.
 * No idea why that's singular. Fixed. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "She grew bored with White House reception lines, and she once said that to pass the time she would conjugate Greek verbs in her head." -
 * No need for second 'she' after the comma, breaks up flow
 * Done. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Cleveland was more academically-inclined than most women of her era, which was a distinction she held from the first ladies before her"
 * Are you trying to say that she was more academically-inclined than other first ladies? If so, I would suggest rephrasing this in a more clear & concise manner. And are prior first ladies "of her era"?
 * It's supposed to be that she was more academically inclined than most women overall. She also happens to be one of the few first ladies who could actually say that. I've removed the comparison to other first ladies. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Her writings were treated less seriously because she was a woman."
 * This is nudged at, but not explicitly stated, by one source, using a New York Times review describing it as 'warm and womanly' as evidence. While this is probally a true statement, the source is not sufficient for such a broad claim.
 * I think this statement supports the general idea: The new respect for seriousness in models of femininity did not extend to scholarly types—at least not in the press’s treatment of Rose Cleveland. In spite of her many intellectual achievements, reporters preferred to concentrate on what she wore. I've reworded it to try to adhere more closely to this.
 * "Public descriptions of her short hair and her strong views on women contributed to this image. Many who knew her found her firm demeanor to be intimidating."
 * Source says nothing about her short hair or strong views on women contributing to this. Her 'purposeful movements' and 'grimness' were described as intimidating.
 * I don't know where the former part came from; perhaps I read it in another source. I think "firm demeanor" is fair way to summarize the latter part. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Her seriousness was beneficial to her brother, as it gave a respectable image to the White House that the president was sometimes unable to convey"
 * This is supported by a line from the article, but this seemingly contradicts with previous statements about the public at large *not* respecting her image.
 * I've reworded both; the earlier line now specifies the press, and the later line now emphasizes the contrast rather than an active effect on public image. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

(Misc: Using the line from Anthony about her professional relationship with Julia Tyler would be good.)
 * Unless there's something I missed, it just says that Tyler showed up at the White House once a year while she was in Washington, something that she had also done during the tenure of the previous first lady. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Using her influence as first lady, Cleveland expressed support for the Women's Anthropological Society, which advocated the inclusion of women in science"
 * This doesn't require the addition of her using her influence to push for this.
 * Reworded to specify that she promoted it using her platform. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Later life
Generally good, just one thing that I would like to get clarification on.
 * "Cleveland felt less of an inclination to write while living in Italy, as social norms were more relaxed in Italy regarding same-sex relationships."
 * Source specifically talks about social norms around expats living in Italy, not Italy in general. This should be specified.
 * Done. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Written works
Appears complete and accurately described. More clarification on How to Win: A Book for Girls beyond "a book" would be nice, but obviously understandable if that's not available.
 * The source just says "a book". Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References, further reading, external links
I do not see any problems here. Further readings appear on-topic and useful, the external link is helpful, references are well put-together. Thank you for giving archive.org links to several of the books.

All in all quite a good article. Just needs some touch-ups and clarifications and it'll be good to go!


 * , I've edited the article per your recommendations. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Doing another run-through, it seems like everything is in a good state. Thank you very much for your work!
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * Overall: Good job! Generalissima (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)