Talk:Juliana Force

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 00:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • "because of her passion for folk art, this initial display led to the first official public exhibition of folk art in a public showing presentation." Please forgive me, but I am unclear what "presentation" means in this context.
   •  Done Changed to - Because of her passion for folk art, this initial display led to the first official public exhibition of folk art in a demonstration.
   • @Aussie Article Writer: Will that work? --Doug Coldwell (talk)

   • Perfect! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The following is referenced by a few citations, but when I checked the link, it takes me to an article about Annie Oakley? Are you sure this is the right page? The citation is: James, Edward (1971). Notable American Women, 1607–1950: A Biographical Dictionary. Harvard University Press. p. 645. ISBN 978-0-674-62734-5. W - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

   I figured out what the situation was. The biography has numerous volumes, the one being linked to was wrong and needed to be changed to Volume 1. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig shows no issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   • File:Juliana Force.jpg - tagged correctly, fair use rationale is correctly applied
   • File:NY Studio School 8 W8th cloudy jeh.jpg - CC image
   • File:Whitney Museum of American Art original 0000 door.jpg - PD image

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   • File:Juliana Force.jpg - fair use image of the subject
   • File:NY Studio School 8 W8th cloudy jeh.jpg - Whitney Museum of American Art's original building
   • File:Whitney Museum of American Art original 0000 door.jpg - Whitney Museum of American Art's original entrance

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Except for the one referencing issue and a question on one sentence, this is a great nomination for GA! Well done on your hard work. Please clarify the sentence and correct the reference, after which I will check it, if that's good then I am happy to pass. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

   excellent, this passes GA! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

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)

• Article: In 1929, Whitney assigned Force to contact the Metropolitan Museum of Art to prepare a plan for a donation of Whitney's collection. Whitney's art collection gift was to be displayed in a new wing she partly financed.

  Source: Art historians, CC-BY-SA-4 which is not compatible with Wikipedia: In 1929 Whitney assigned Force to contact Edward Robinson, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, to arrange a gift of Whitney's collection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Times Union Oct 1930, copy-paste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)