Wikipedia:Peer review/Marjorie Paxson/archive1

Marjorie Paxson


I've listed this article for peer review because I created it from not-even-a-redlink, took it to DYK and GA, and I just love this woman, and I'd like to see the article about her be as good as I can make it. I submitted it for FA, but I really don't understand the process so it was suggested I come here for help.

Pinging and  as they asked me to, and,  and  as GtM suggested I should.

Thanks, —valereee (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

 * Lead
 * What is a Penney-Missouri award?
 * "sorority Theta Sigma Phi" as a non-North American this is all Greek to me. Er, I am assuming that it is because I am not North American, possibly I need to be Greek; or whatever.
 * "inducted into their hall of fame". "their" → 'its'?
 * "covering hard news". What was it about the type of news she covered - which perhaps you should specify - that made it difficult?
 * "Paxson finished her career as a newspaper publisher in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma." The main article suggests, without being (IMO) entirely clear, that she finished her career in Oklahoma in 1986, having left her Pennsylvania role six years earlier. Either the lead needs amending or the main article text needs clarifying.
 * "the National Women and Media Collection." Which is?
 * The lead could do with more Wiki-links. Eg Houston, Miami, Philadelphia and Bois; Second World War; probably the various states; women's movement and feminist; and hall of fame.
 * Perhaps red link Association for Women in Communications?

That's just the lead. Either this is not helping, in which case don't be shy in saying so; or it is and you can have ago at applying the principles behind these points to the rest of the article, in which case ping me when you have had a go. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! All helpful! I'm loling at 'hard news' -- it's hard vs. soft, as in serious news vs what was perceived as fluff, rather than hard vs. easy. Must be an Americanism or N.Americanism. Or maybe I'm just more familiar with old-fashioned news jargon.
 * I've made those additions and corrections, both in the lead and in the body! —valereee (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Added a bunch more links in the body, did a bit of copyediting. —valereee (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that I will be doing a full copy edit - although the article could do with one - so I will toss in issues as I notice them; there may, or may not, be further similar cases elsewhere in the article.
 * Wire services, first paragraph.
 * "Like many women of the time in the United States, during World War II". As you have during World War II", "of the time" is redundant.
 * "Like many women of the time in the United States, during World War II Paxson was able to be considered for jobs previously limited to men,[6]:114 and starting in 1944 she covered hard news for the wire services, first for UPI in the two-person Lincoln, Nebraska, bureau for $25 a week, which represented equal pay because it was covered by the American Newspaper Guild contract." An over-long sentence.
 * "... of the time ... At the time ... at the time ... at the time ..." Perhaps a little variation?
 * "reported all state news". Do you mean 'were the only people reporting any news from the state for UPI ...'?
 * ""you just had to put up with it, spend as little time as possible in his office, make a point of always keeping the desk between you. If he started to come around the desk, you picked up those opinions and left." MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Am in the middle of crazy busy IRL, but I'm going to have a period of availability from the 4th through the 6th and will deal with these, thanks so much! —valereee (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

, I've made these changes! Wow, I hadn't even seen that "at the time" business. That's a bad habit. —valereee (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

It is possible that may have suggestions. It seems her sort of article and period and I don't think she is busy at the moment. (RALMAO! Oh, I am so going to pay for that!) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * o.Õ, yes, that's me. Over here twiddling my thumbs while 195 articles are magically writing themselves with information on women's nationality. But that being said I'll be happy to look it over if you can give me a few days. Say over the weekend? SusunW (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @SusunW, no urgency whatsoever...I just keep looking at the FA criteria and thinking neutral, stable, copyvio good, has a lead, citations are consistent, image seems fine...as far as I can tell I've found everything that has ever been written about this woman, and I haven't as far as I know left anything out or focussed on trivial stuff...but multiple experienced FA reviewers thought it was in problematic enough shape that it couldn't pass the review, and I have no reason to doubt their opinions. Maybe it's a problem with the writing, which of course is probably the hardest aspect for me to assess myself? Is it because there's limited scholarship, which is an issue for women's page journalists, who weren't considered even worth scholarly attention until very recently? Is it that I've never tried to write a lead this comprehensive and I've got it all wrong? I just am looking at the criteria and don't understand why I don't seem to be figuring out what's needed. —valereee (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'll take a look over the weekend then. I'm no expert on FA, I've done only 2, but I've written a lot about women. Right now my brain is in Benin (okay Dahomey) and the French are about to colonize it. I'm thinking a few more days and I'll get them to independence. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Voss (2006): add the ISSN (0094-7679).
 * ✅ —valereee (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Voss & Speere: ditto - 1940-8862.
 * ✅ —valereee (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Voss & Speere: the host work needs the editors, ISBN etc giving.
 * Found the editor, publisher, location published, but I'm not finding an ISBN. It's a digital journal, perhaps there isn't one? —valereee (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Again the above is non-exhaustive and there may be (there are) other similar cases.
 * I will try to figure out what is missing for other references. —valereee (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There are duplicate links.
 * ✅ Pretty sure I've run checks at least once; they do tend to creep in. —valereee (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It could do with another image or two.
 * Found images of her high school, which was opened c. 1937 when she would have been 14, so I'm sure it's the correct image, and for the Philadelphia Bulletin, which apparently was still in use until the paper ceased publication. The other newspaper buildings Wikimedia Commons has images for, I haven't been able to tell whether they were the buildings in use during her time at those papers. Are these useful images? There are multiple other non-free images of Paxson online, but I'm not finding anything we could use for anything but the main image. —valereee (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "She was selected in 1989 to participate in the Washington Press Foundation's Women in Journalism Oral History Project, one of four women's page journalists to be included." Out of how many participants in total? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ —valereee (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that the lead accurately reflects the article? And that everything in the lead is in the main article? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Will go through and reconfirm in both directions (I'm more sure what's in the lead is in the sections, less sure that the lead is the best possible reflection), thanks! —valereee (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

 * Hi, usually PRs that have not received additional comments after a month are closed. Are you still interested in getting comments from editors, or will you be closing this? Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, @Z1720, I'm still interested. I was hoping to try to take this article to FA class, but commenters at FA thought it was so far from being ready that I was advised to bring it here first. This process of trying to navigate FA for the first time seems really difficult, and I find that very troubling. I am a very experienced editor, with well over 100 articles created, 40K+ edits, and 15 years of experience. I can't image what the FA process must feel like to someone who doesn't have that level of experience here. It honestly makes me wonder how often someone new manages to get through this set of gates, and if the answer is "very seldom," then that's not healthy for the FA project or for the encyclopedia. :( —valereee (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a fairly new editor (actively editing since Aug. 2020) and I just got through my first FA a few weeks ago with William Lyon Mackenzie. What prepared me for the FAC process was reviewing other FACs: it made me take a closer look at the FA criteria, see how the FAC process worked (formatting, how comments are given, etc.) and I got feedback on if I was interpreting the criteria correctly. It also built goodwill towards the community and more editors were willing to review my article. In the first few reviews, you do not have to declare your support or oppose (although should state that you are not going to comment on the merits) but honestly, with your experience here I think you can comment on if the prose, if the article avoids technical jargon, and if sourcing meets FA standards (and let others comment on the more technical stuff.) You can also comment on other PRs that are getting ready for FACs,
 * I also put WLM through 2 PRs and reached out for a mentor at WP:FAM, which I highly recommend. FA criteria is a huge barrier to overcome, but it can be met. We'll keep this PR open, and hopefully get more comments soon. Feel free to ask people to review PRs: since this isn't a nomination for anything it is not considered canvassing. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a quick skim through the article, and a big concern that jumped out at me are the lack of page numbers in the references. Book sources should have accompanying page numbers for every reference, which are listed separately. This helps with verifying the information, which will happen in the source review. See WP:PAGENUM for details. Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The page numbers are mostly in RP templates. Is that not the way to go? —valereee (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you are correct, your templates are fine. That's what I get for trying to skim an article. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, happy to have any comment to try to address! :) —valereee (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Z1720, I did comment at one. I'll go make a pest of myself lol...it just seems so circular that you'd need to participate in the process before you really even understand what the process is. That's why we don't ask people to review noms at DYK until they've been through the process five times themselves: because until they've been through it multiple times, they tend to do more harm than good. :D And frankly the idea that you need to build up goodwill...well, it makes me a little sad to think that all the work I've put in other places wouldn't already do that. Sorry, don't mean to shoot the messenger, the existing culture isn't your fault.
 * I tried to get a mentor last time I attempted this (years ago, with a different article), but neither of the people I reached out to ever responded. I just approached another person. Fingers crossed! And now off I go to make clueless comments at FA... :D —valereee (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, clueless comments are helpful for evaluating for technical language. The average reader (who is not at all familiar with WP policy) needs understands the info in the article, so if an inexperienced FAC reviewer is not concerned, then that's one criterion that is met at FAC. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "It honestly makes me wonder how often someone new manages to get through this set of gates, and if the answer is "very seldom," then that's not healthy for the FA project or for the encyclopedia." For the past two years I have awarded every first-Time FACer a special barnstar. I haven't kept track of them, perhaps I should have, but would guess that there have been 30-35. Even more tentatively, about half or more of these are back at FAC within a year. I am not sure whether this is to be considered good or bad news. I also note that 31 months ago I had no FAs, I now have 37; so newcomers do break into the "charmed circle" on occasion. I think that the biggest hurdle is getting the prose to a "professional level", that is a high bar and comes on top of all of the other requirements. One can be a superb Wikipedian, but not be able to write to a professional level (I am not suggesting that this is the case here). It is probably not a common skill. I suppose that is what collaborations are for.


 * Z1720's advice is spot on. And your, Valereee's, approch also seems good. Personally I nominated over 40 GANs, 7 ACRs and formally copy edited 300,000 words for GoCE before I submitted my first FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Gog the Mild. I apologize for sounding probably a bit whiny. :) I didn't intend it that way. I started this process because it felt like something I should know, and I do want to learn it. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Again Z1720 is spot on. Review a dozen articles. There is no necessity to support or oppose, although feel free to - the coordinators will weigh it appropriately, honest! Look at the FA criteria. There must be something you feel comfortable reviewing against. Do so and specify that that is all you have covered. Or just comment on the prose and what parts of the MoS you are aware of, and again say so. If language is so technical that you don't know what it means, say so. It shouldn't be; this is an encyclopedia, the whole point is to explain things. When all is said and done, FAC is tough, it is meant to be tough, it should be tough. (Am I channelling West Wing here?) They are, after all, fewer than one in a thousand. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My comments seem to be lagging by a response. I assume that you can work them out. Don't worry, we've all been there. Sadly even having a couple of dozen FAs isn't a sure cure . I think the wording of my recent award to Z1720 sums my view User talk:Z1720. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

SusunW
As promised, here goes: Lede— ✅
 * Second sentence seems really long. Perhaps, "In the 1960s she co-managed the women's page of the Miami Herald with Marie Anderson. It won so many Penney-Missouri awards, the highest honor for women's section journalists, that the paper was asked to retire from the competition".
 * Add "in 1969" to "Paxson also won a Penney-Missouri"
 * Repeated use of Association for Women in Communications at the end of the 1st paragraph is redundant. How about, "She won their Lifetime Achievement…" and put in dates for the award 2001 and when she was inducted 2003.
 * Graduated when?
 * In the context of her demotions, I think she is specifically talking about liberationists. Second wave includes "Marxist feminists", those who wanted to change economic systems to change the class structure, "liberal feminists", those who wanted to reform existing structures through legislation, and radicals who wanted to change the way women were perceived in society, etc. What you are describing seems to me a reaction to liberationists. Were it me, I would change link from the broader Second-wave feminism to "Women's liberation movement in North America#United States|women's movement"
 * The last two paragraphs need reworking into one. I would move "Throughout her career, Paxson…" to the lead sentence in the previous paragraph. Insert 1986 as to when she retired. (in my hometown, who knew?) Why only Oklahoma? Your previous places for her employment list cities? I would delete the bit about Theta Sigma Phi as you've already said that in the 1st paragraph. I would follow the retirement with "That year, she helped create the National Women and Media Collection…" and finish the paragraph with the last sentence leading it with "In 1989".

Early life (and education?)— ✅
 * No need to say twice they moved. First sentence take out "who had moved to Houston" 2nd appearance, insert Houston.
 * Uninterested/interested, redundant. Perhaps "became involved in journalism"?
 * "Had been concerned" just was?
 * Something is missing here, you said she was concerned about getting in and then that Rice had an endowment. Next sentence says she attended. Wouldn't the order be application, acceptance, scholarship, attendance? Maybe "She was accepted and granted an endowment from Rice that allowed her to attend tuition-free. Her parents paid $200…"
 * Worth mentioning that the Columbia Missourian is the student newspaper?
 * Move the last 2 sentences to Career. She was out of school and they are about work.

Wire services — ✅
 * War is used a lot in these paragraphs. (I find myself looking for its next occurrence, rather than comprehending the text). Perhaps change "At the time, due to the war" to "At the time, as men were away (fighting?)"; "During the war Paxson and the Lincoln bureau manager" delete during the war; "After the war, Paxson" can be deleted and just start "Having signed a waiver…"

Editor—
 * "The more progressive paper" seems odd to me, like it is comparing 2. Perhaps "a more" as that indicates that there were more than 2, and there were.
 * "Houston's oil-boom economy" is a really long sentence. Insert periods (remove "and"s) after "social events", "sewn by her mother" (delete "that") and then, were it me, I would remove the "and" after "to write" add a comma, change the verb tense to "filed". (The other option would be to write and to file (otherwise the verb tense seems odd), but that is making the sentence longer and repetitious with ands).
 * When did she move brides off the front page?
 * When was she promoted to women's page editor? After you insert the date, end the sentence and begin again, "She attempted to cover".
 * This is the only clue I've been able to find, from the oral history project: There was a wire story about the state PTA convention in another Texas city. The fashion editor had given up being women's editor and I got the job. And we were trying to get more things into the women's section. When it came across the wires, I wanted it for the women's section. And I went to the managing editor and he had no objection to it but he said just go talk to the news editor...(who) said, "I'll never give a news story to the women's section...When the story came out, it was one that we could have probably given a two-column headline to and ten or twelve inches. He gave it three paragraphs. But he would not give it to me. Unfortunately the Post is only digitized through 1944 so far, so we can't get any joy there even from OR. It's likely from her interviews that it happened before the move of the brides off the front page, as it seems clear that she considered this an accomplishment of hers (rather than of her former boss), but I'm a little reluctant to use the fact she did specify late '51/early '52 for the brides thing but didn't explicitly say when she was promoted. Voss, who has probably written more about her than anyone else, doesn't mention the date in either her book, which covers Paxson heavily, or her journal article about Paxson. SHSMO doesn't mention it in their bio, and they have all her papers.
 * Newspapers.com articles show she was society editor in 1949 and women's editor in 1951. She doesn't appear in any of the Texas database in 1949 or 1950, but in January 1951 The Thresher called her society editor and in February 1951 they called her the women's page editor. I think you are safe with stating 1951, as 3 sources confirm that. SusunW (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You are amazing! I was trying to search the Post, never even though to search other TX newspapers! Thanks so much! —valereee (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm a researcher first and foremost. Research is invigorating, solving a mystery and experiencing the adventure of where the search leads. Writer second and reviewer is way down there at the bottom because it is so stressful. ;) SusunW (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems abrupt to me to introduce the next paragraph with someone we don't know and who isn't the subject of the article. Perhaps "Paxon was hired as a copyeditor in 1956, by Dorothy Jurney"
 * The segments of the list in the next sentence aren't grammatically correct…verb, verb, noun? Should be was mentored, worked, "was managed by editors Al Neuharth…"
 * Insert "When" before Jurney moved, a comma after 1959, and remove the comma in "editor, and Paxson". It changes the sentence from being about Jurney to being about Anderson and Paxson.
 * Link both women's movement (see above) and Penney-Missouri Awards. This is the first time they appear in the body of the piece.
 * What does "at the time" add to the sentence about the St. Petersburg Times?
 * Really long sentence. Insert a period after "with a staff of 15" omit "but", capitalize "In", insert a comma after 1973, insert a period after "demoted", delete "this time to" and replace it with "She was made"
 * Was the metropolitan editor post a promotion? If so "She was promoted to assistant…"; if not "She became" to avoid repetition of she was made.
 * "She still had no personnel" again is a really long sentence with a lot of repetition of "she" Perhaps end at "control". Start again, "Once when faced…Paris, Paxson said…"
 * "Edit the Xilonen, spelling varies in the article. Checking sources should be Xylonen.,
 * "Women in Communications Headliner Award" from who?
 * "While editing…Paxson edited" Repetitious. Perhaps "At Xylonen, Paxson edited"?
 * "where he had" seems odd. He did it, thus why not give him the credit rather than the company? Perhaps, "She reached out to the head of Gannett, Neuharth, who had increased…minorities. He brought her to their headquarters…". Don't repeat Gannett.
 * Abrupt change of subject at the end of the paragraph, i.e. not about Jurney, keep focus on Paxson. Perhaps, "Paxson then joined Jurney to help with work on the official report…"
 * Repetitious "managing editor"; perhaps "to become assistant to managing editor Gary Watson. She helped prepare…"
 * Xylonen, not "Xi…"

Publisher—
 * Gannett repetition. Perhaps "She was the fourth woman publisher of the firm's daily paper".
 * Public Opinion repetition. Perhaps no need for a separate paragraph. "She worked at the Public Opinion for a little under three years and while there, Paxson accepted a three-week post in Copenhagen as associate editor…Women".
 * About Rowley, wouldn't it be whom? Of whom she said, is implied. (But admittedly who/whom is confusing)
 * Gannett repetition again. Don't think it is needed before "the Phoenix" or in the sentence "Her ending salary".

In retirement—
 * What was the name of the book? If the same, just say of the same name.

Association for Women in Communications— ✅ Views and advocacy—
 * Repetition is distracting, lots of organization and professional going on. Perhaps "The group had been founded…students."; "During Paxson’s tenure, it became the de facto business association for…"; "When she was first elected, the sorority…"; "Paxson campaigned for more professionalism…"; "She pressed for the establishment of a national headquarters in Austin, Texas, to eliminate the need for the files to be stored in the national secretary's garage".; "she considered a more bussinesslike title".
 * Change 2nd "stop" to "quit"


 * Not sure how to eliminate the repetition of "women" and "movement" in this section. Maybe "by leaders of the feminist movement"; "supporters of feminism"; "Leaders of the movement condemned…"; "to eliminate these pages in favor"

Awards and legacy/Personal life— Comment: Maybe this is a "me" thing, but how does one separate out a personal life from a life? Career impacts personal, personal impacts career, so they are simultaneously happening? Were it me, I would do awards as a section (stuff she earned) and then a death and legacy section (stuff that is ongoing, i.e. building a legacy).
 * Things in a list that have commas should have the parts of the list separated by semi-colons, i.e. "St. Petersburg Times (you need the period as you have called it St. elsewhere); … (correct Xylonen) …in 1975; and…"
 * After the first paragraph, I would move the rest of the information to death and legacy.
 * I would move the sentence about living with her parents to the end of the paragraph in "Editor" following "3 in the morning".
 * Insert that she died in Muskogee and was buried at Greenhill Cemetery.
 * Follow that by "She donated her papers…". I would make all 3 paragraphs that move to this section only 1 paragraph.

Overall comment: In my writing courses for my history major, we were always told to start a paragraph by naming the subject and then to reduce redundancy to alternate between pronouns and the name. Maybe this has changed, but it still seems weird to me to start a paragraph as she, because in that paragraph "she" hasn't been introduced.

Overall, fascinating life and a fine research job you've done. Thank you for introducing her to me. None of my comments are required, just my thoughts on tightening up the prose. Ping me if you want to discuss, I'm off to Botswana. SusunW (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @SusunW, thank you so much for putting so much time into this! I'll be working on this over the next few days! —valereee (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅; took me longer than I'd expected! I think I've done everything, unless I managed to miss something. There's a bit more to do (per comments from GtM, I want to go through the lead and make sure everything in it is indeed sourced in the body, and I've already found a date discrepancy I need to go back to research). Thank you all! —valereee (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)