Talk:Florence Merriam Bailey/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SquareInARoundHole (talk · contribs) 03:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Beginning review

I am beginning a review of this article. I'll track my progress with the tracker below. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Review tracker

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

I think the lead needs to be reworked. It feels too granular on a few topics and doesn't really summarize the article very well, other than the first paragraph, which drew my interest immediately. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

SquareInARoundHole I have been attempting to rewrite the lede for the better part of an hour and have no idea how to substantially rework it without more specific advice. The major aspects of the article are all covered: early life, college, writing, later life, death. Please don't mean this as an insult or me trying to be difficult, it's just that every attempted rewrite I do just ends up covering the same thing in slightly different words. Is this your only comment? The article has been left "on review" for several weeks without so much as a ping. — GhostRiver 18:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the rest of the article is good, but it is quite long and I've been sick and I'm currently working two jobs so have had little time to verify all of the sources, but continue to do so over time. I suspect they will all check out and my only concern with passing this article is the lede.

My issue with it is that while it does summarize the parts of the article as you've stated, it feels oddly focused on her companions, and doesn't really capture why she's notable. I understand mentioning her father and brother, for example, but not the nature walks or even the trip she took with them. Instead, mentioning that she had little formal education in her early life and instead was educated and influenced by her family, especially her brother who was a notable zoologist makes sense. The same for her place of birth. It's a granular detail that while true, does not tell me anything about why/how she's notable. A better point would be to tie into her home science education near the Adirondack Mountains, which had ample nature, especially birds. Both of those points could be tied into a single sentence in the second paragraph. Her time in college is mentioned, but her status as a special student who wasn't eligible for a degree is not, and it's important because her legacy caused the college to present her with a degree in her 50's.

It doesn't at all capture her legacy - no awards, no summary of her works (how many books did she write?), nothing about her teaching, no laws her activism affected, not even the bird species named after her. These are the things I would expect to see in a lede about this woman, summarizing this very good article about her life and notability. I hope this is more helpful. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

SquareInARoundHole. I've tried to rework the lede. I haven't particularly liked either version, but I think looking at it more would only frustrate me more. What do you think? — GhostRiver 19:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I took a stab at reworking after your last rework, let me know what you think. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Status

@GhostRiver: I finished checking the citations and everything passed. Let me know if you want to rework the lede any further. Happy to update the article to GA status if you're happy with the lede. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

SquareInARoundHole I'm fine with the lede in its current state! — GhostRiver 14:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)