Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marjorie Paxson/archive1

Marjorie Paxson

 * Nominator(s): —valereee (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

An influential women's page journalist and editor; women's page journalism was until very recently denigrated and unstudied, and many of even the most influential editors weren't even redlinked anywhere. This is my first attempt at an FA; the article was GA reviewed by and DYK reviewed by, other contributors include  and. —valereee (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Image has appropriate fair use licensing (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done
 * "Boise, Idaho, as a women's page editor" - source?
 * Why the different formatting between FNs 2 and 3?
 * Be consistent in whether authors are listed last or first name first
 * Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
 * Be consistent in when you use sentence vs title case
 * Is "5:33:205" meant to represent three different pages?
 * I can't find any information about R.J. Berg/Destinations Press - what sort of publisher is this?
 * FN9: don't repeat website title in title field. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed 1, 2, 3. I've reordered the book that don't have locations, some are interlibrary loans so it might be a couple weeks. Re sentence vs. title case...I think you mean the capitalization of the article titles? Yes, IIRC, 5:33:205 was information from multiple pages, but that's one of the books I've ordered so I'll recheck. Is there a better way to communicate that information? I've ordered the R.J. Berg book, will see if it gives me any more information on who it is. :) —valereee (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, got the R.J.Berg book. It's a small publisher, certainly, and much of the content is self-sourced. I do remember that the stuff I sourced to it was mentioned in other places, so if anyone wants to eliminate this source, I can probably find a source for that content in another source. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there's more to suggest it would be considered high-quality, I would definitely say we should replace it. For the page numbers, would suggest comma separation rather than colon - colon to me suggests chapter/verse or something of that sort. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Have comma separated. The coding for colon seems to have come from the RP template. —valereee (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I found the quotes that were sourced to Clabes also in Whitt. Whitt sources it to Clabes but doesn't provide the date; the Clabes book was published in 1983 and consists of a series of profiles of US women newspaper editors, each an introductory few paragraphs followed by purpose-written essays by the subject of the profile. Shall I keep the Clabes to support the dates Paxson wrote these things? To me it feels important to know when in her career she was writing this stuff. —valereee (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod
Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty short, & somehow a bit thin - maybe the sources aren't there. But perhaps the key point arising from her career is clearly expressed in the (also rather short) lead.
 * Her last 2 jobs were as "publisher" at newspapers. There's a link (not at 1st use) use to publisher, but I doubt that helps readers at all. It should be explained (in both articles) that in newspaper & magazines the publisher (as a job title) is the person in charge of the business side, as opposed to anything editorial.
 * Yes, it's short and thin. Many of these women weren't really considered very important in their lifetimes. I believe there are sources available at the State Historical Society of Missouri that could possibly be useful, but a lot of them would be primary and that's a 7 hour drive. :) I've changed the pipe for publisher to first mention and to something more helpful, I think. —valereee (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Lawrence Khoo
A bit thinly sourced – relying on a handful of sources, but then, that could be the nature of the subject.

The lead section needs a lead paragraph that succinctly describes and summarizes why the subject is notable. See MOS:OPENPARABIO for guidelines on what should be in the lead paragraph.

LK (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, LK, thanks for the comments. Yep, it is thinly sourced. It's only in the past maybe fifteen years that anyone bothered with these women because: Women working on things for women. :D I've made a stab at a lead paragraph! —valereee (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV
Kimberly Wilmot Voss's PhD dissertation (2004), from page 136, contains a lot of detail about Paxson. I can see that at least some of that information is in another Voss source cited in the article, but the information hasn't been added to the article. SarahSV (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the last part of this means—"and their editors, whom she believed had been supporters of the movement". The "which she believed" + "whom she believed" construction needs a rewrite: "She expressed bitterness over her demotions and attributed them partially to the women's movement, which she believed unfairly denigrated women's pages and their editors, whom she believed had been supporters of the movement." SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Interview with Paxson from 1991, with lots of additional details. See cover and index. SarahSV (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC); edited 18:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead says she was born on August 23 and the infobox and first section say August 13. The lead and infobox give no middle name, but the first section does. SarahSV (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sarah, thank you so much, and sorry for the delay, I suddenly and unexpectedly have gotten crazy busy IRL. I've added quite a bit from the Voss, am still working my way through the interviews but they've already helped with some confusion between other sources. The birth date must have been a typo! —valereee (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Valereee, there are still a few issues that need to be fixed, too many to list. It would be faster to fix them than to explain. I think you should let this be archived so that you can work on it at your leisure, then you can renominate. SarahSV (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
This has been open for three weeks and there is no sign of a consensus for promotion forming. If there are no indications of the nomination gaining significant support over the next day or two it is liable to be archived. You may wish to see if any of the reviewers who have commented so far are inclined to support promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Gog the Mild, I don't know how this process works at all. This is my first time here. What is supposed to have happened at this point? —valereee (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I hadn't realised that, and I should have. Three weeks in, one would have expected a formal support or two. Or three. Instead you have had comments from three reviewers, all expressing degrees of dissatisfaction and one explicitly suggesting that you withdraw it to address issues off-FAC. Articles should arrive at FAC pretty much meeting the FAC criteria and the MoS, and just requiring a final polish. All of this is open to interpretation, but the reviewers seem to be suggesting that the article as it stands should be either withdrawn or archived to allow time for issues identified to be addressed. Possibly at WP:PR and possibly assisted by the same reviewers. Prior to, hopefully, a renomination of an improved article. Unless there is evidence that they, or other reviewers, disagree with this, I intend to archive it in a couple of days. If any of this is unclear, feel free to to come back at me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild, thanks! Maybe FA just isn't for me -- I thought it would be useful to go through the process so I could understand how it works, but if I'm not a FA writer, that's fine. It's fine to archive it. —valereee (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , don't say that about yourself. The article is very close. Don't give up! SarahSV (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Sarah! It's not that I don't think I'm capable of doing whatever needs to be done -- and I'm totally willing to do the work -- it's just that I just don't know what is is that needs doing. I've read the criteria, and I'm hearing the article isn't meeting them in multiple ways, but honestly I don't know what those ways are. The process just feels sort of opaque to me. —valereee (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, ; it is great to see you at FAC. I have been running behind lately on reviews because my computer got stuck in repair, but asked me to lend a hand here. I am pretty sure he means, help you explore the fastest route to the bronze star :)  When a FAC doesn't garner sufficient support or reviews early on, a helpful route to turn things around quickly, and get more reviewers on board, is to submit the article instead to WP:PR, list it at Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and invite everyone who weighed in here to help you polish it up there.  The reason that works (faster) is that reviewers can engage with less pressure at PR, whereas commentary at FAC is expected to be "resolved" via striking, answering, addressing whatever, so it creates more pressure on the reviewers and nominator to work quickly, which for reviewers, means constantly revisiting and updating. You can also ping people to a PR without concerns about canvassing. PR can be a faster route because wrinkles can be worked out there, such that by the time you return to FAC, you may see some immediate supports and get a more quickly promoted FAC, whereas keeping a FAC open that has fallen to the bottom of the page is rarely fruitful. Several experienced reviewers have indicated that the article (and its sourcing) is a bit thin, so it is unlikely that this FAC will progress from here towards the bronze star; I suggest withdrawing, opening a PR, and pinging everyone who has engaged at this FAC (and anyone else who might be interested) to the PR, where you are likely to have a more enjoyable and collaborative experience. If you look at the history of The Heart of Thomas, you may see that PR worked out very well for. Should you do that, please count me in, and know that I will do all I can to encourage other reviewers to engage ... best of luck going forward, as we anticipate an eventual FA here ! (oops, edit conflict with SarahSV -- what she said !! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @SandyGeorgia, thanks so much! That's fine, I'm happy to try Peer Review. I did try it once before on another article but didn't end up taking the article to FA. But I've got more experience now, I'm happy to give it another go! —valereee (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great ... we'll get you over the hump. You may have to be patient, as we're all stretched thin, but always willing to help.  Maybe have a look meanwhile at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content.  The top portion is focused on my content area (medical editing), but towards the bottom it becomes more general, and may give you some tips about how to negotiate the process, as well as other reading.  See you at PR! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)