Talk:Elizabeth Plankinton

Elizabeth Plankinton was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 16, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
February 26, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 29, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Elizabeth Plankinton, known as the "municipal patroness" for her philanthropy, gifted a 9-foot (2.7 m) high bronze George Washington sculpture to the citizens of Milwaukee?
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 27, 2018, July 27, 2021, and July 27, 2023.
Current status: Delisted good article

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Wisconsin Mid‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Plankinton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Right cite (talk · contribs) 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look at this one. Right cite (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Successful good article nomination edit

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 16, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I read over the article and there is not much in the way of talk page history but I also read through the previous form of review available which was at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Plankinton. EdChem provided good feedback at that time. The article is well written. It could stand to have some more copyediting from the guild of copyeditors or a peer review or both, if it wants to have a shot at featured article, but the writing quality is good enough for good article at this point in time.

2. Verifiable?: Every fact in the article is appropriately cited with citations. Citations are of a high quality and include magazines, historical societies, archived newspapers, and books. The citations appropriately demarcate where the references may be obtained. I like how the lede notes citations for the alternate names used. I also like how the infobox has citations for ease of use for the facts about the brother and sister. It is clear that a lot of research went into the subject matter. Good job.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers all major aspects of the subject's life, including: Biography, Elizabeth Plankinton House, Philanthropy, Milwaukee Washington monument, and, Later life. Before featured article consideration, I would suggest expanding a little bit more about "In 2016–2018, the statue was extensively restored.", if there was any more source coverage about that process.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article goes into depth and detail about its subject. But in so doing it is not overly praiseworthy or negative. It is written in a neutral tone. The article presents the facts as they are. It meets WP:NPOV.

5. Stable? No talk page history to speak of. Good discussion as per normal processes at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Plankinton, where all issues were addressed there. Article history shows great work by Doug Coldwell.

6. Images?: Image review check passes. All images are free use. All images are licensed appropriately. All images are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Great job overall.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Right cite (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Right cite. I am glad to see an article that Doug and I worked on reach GA. This does remind me, though, of an unfortunate aspect of the GA process, that the nomination / "credit" goes to one editor. In this case, as the page statistics confirm, the article is over 90% written by Doug or myself and yet we don't both get to be credited. To me, the GA process should allow for multiple authors / editors to be credited with the achievement of the article making GA status. Note, this is not to suggest that Doug Coldwell has done anything wrong or is undeserving of credit, just that this aspect of the GA system is irritating to me. EdChem (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

●Was a great read and we'll sourced.....but this GA Review seems lacking in detail.--Moxy 🍁 05:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic