Talk:Wilma Scott Heide

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 09:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Overall

• I'll take this one for review, comments forthcoming Mujinga (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Sammielh thanks for an interesting read, I've made comments below, mostly on prose and MOS compliance with a minor concern close paraphrasing - see what you think. please answer everything (but you don't have to agree to everything!) and let me know if something does not make sense. I'll put the article on hold now awaiting changes for seven days, I'm not averse to extending this period but we would need to communicate on that point Mujinga (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Mujinga Thank you so much for picking up this review! I ran out of time today to do a full pass through your comments but I'll continue tomorrow (apologies that the points I picked up are slightly out of order, I promise that I'm not ignoring the ones that I haven't responded to) Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Mujinga I think I have replied to everything, let me know if there's anything else! Sammielh (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

      Brilliant I'll take a look tomorrow! Mujinga (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

      Great thanks for all the prompt and precise answers, congratulations on the good article! I left a comment about Jo Ann Evansgardner, see what you think, but happy to finish the review already Mujinga (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

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

• earwig gives noticeably high strikes with two sources but its mainly group names. it would be worth rephrasing "helped form the Women's Coalition for the Third Century" to avoid being the same as in the tribdem and hollisarchives
  • I have re-worded this sentence, please let me know if there are any other ones that you would like me to re-think. I noticed the same thing when I ran earwig prior to submission to GAN but I think the rest are the names of organizations or universities. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    • nice one I agree the rest is proper names Mujinga (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• no image? shame
  • I tried to find one that could be used but I wasn't able to; I did find some published by the Smithsonian which I added to external links but I wasn't sure of their copyright status. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  hmm yes they don't make it easy to check, my guess is being from 1974 it's 50 or 70 years before copyright runs out but you could always mail them and ask Mujinga (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• fixed dashes using a handy script
• article is broad, neutral and focused. it is stable, no edit wars.

Lead and infobox

• I always come to these last after reading through the article
• lead is a decent length
• "who was a leader in the second-wave feminism movement. " no doubt true but not stated in the body. the lead shoudl be summarising what is said below.
  • This was in the article before I started editing, but I have removed it. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• "she imposed changes to rectify the persistent mistreatment of staff and patients." that is alluded to but not stated below
  • I have added this into the main text of the article Sammielh (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• "She received her bachelor's and masters' degrees in sociology from the University of Pittsburgh" good you mention this, it's tricky with the doctorate because it seems she was working on it in 1970 then stopped? then finished it later. maybe you can add a sentence here in the lead before the last sentence summarising some of the last paragraph in the article?
  • I added an additional sentence, please let me know what you think Sammielh (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  looks good! Mujinga (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• infobox is good, everything mentioned there is in text as it should be

Prose

• "couldn't be ordained" → could not be ordained.
  • Done. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• "She was encouraged to leave the job by her fellow attendants" what are attendants here?
  • I have added that Heide was working as a hospital attendant but that is all the details given by the source. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• "she was once again considered insubordinate " - once again is not encyclopaedic, moreover this is the first we hear about protests
  • Amended. I added some additional information about her time at the hospital to give some context, please let me know if you think any of the new material should be amended. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  i like it Mujinga (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• "ours a week and eventually reported the hospital to the Department of Welfare for its non-compliance with regulations.[14] She eventually" - 2x eventually, I wouldn't say either is particularly necessary
  • I cut the first one. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• NAACP should be written out on first mention
  • Done. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• PTA should be written out on first mention
  • Done. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• "She was told by a doctor that her depression was caused by a desire to be a man" - shaking my head here how could a doctor say that [just a comment]
  • I feel like there's always at least one horrifying comment when you do biographies of women. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Prose2

• "she hadn't been" → she had not been
  • Done. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• "studying for her doctorate" - where?
  • I found a source that said it was the University of Pittsburgh (and that finally clarified that she paused her studies!) so I have added this in. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• YWCA should be written out on first mention
  • Done. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• "ultimately settled a case with the EEOC for $53 million" - since you have just given the 2021 figure for a sum above, should also do it here for the 53
  • Done. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• "Heide chose not to run for a third term as president in May 1974.[48] Instead she served as chairwoman of a NOW national advisory board " since this is starting a new section, I'd suggest moving NOW up to in front of president
  • Done. Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• last paragraph is a bit listy, perhaps you can rephrase a bit , although i know that's hard
  • I've tried to rephrase but let me know if you think I've made it worse or I should amend it Sammielh (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  nice one looks better now and also different to source Mujinga (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Reference spotchecks

• On this version:
• 6 can't check it, AGF
• 8 ok
• 12 and 24 for "Heide learned of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1967, a year after the organization was founded. That same year, she founded the Pittsburgh chapter and was elected as president" - "a year after the organization was founded" is not backed, 12 says "newly formed"
  • Amended. Sammielh (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• 25 "where women had to wait for a seat in the public area " is a bit close to the source's "women had to wait to be seated in a public area".
  • This has been amended. Sammielh (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• 25 source says "Heide chose the date for the sit-in to coincide with the campaign to have sex discrimination in public accommodations banned in Pittsburgh" we have "The sit-in was organized by Heide to coincide with the campaign to make gender a protected characteristic in the anti-discrimination ordinance covering employment, housing, and public accommodations" which is a bit different
  • The source says, further down the page, "Pittsburgh already had a strong antidiscrimination ordinance at the start of 1968 that outlawed discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on many criteria—but not sex.12 Wilma Scott Heide began a campaign to have gender made a protected category" which is where this comes from. Sammielh (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• 31 ok
• 42 gives Jo Ann Evans Gardner not Jo Ann Evansgardner
  • Haney does give it as Jo Ann Evans Gardner but most other reliable sources say Jo Ann Evansgardner (she combined her maiden name and her husband's surname) so I'm a bit conflicted. I don't like adding another source just to show that this is how her name is normally spelled and if she had an article, I think I would just use the spelling in the article title (I do want to create an article as I think she's notable, I just haven't gotten around to it!) so I wasn't sure how to proceed here. What do you think is best? Sammielh (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oh that's interesting. I tried running a Ngram to see which is more popular but it didn't work (above my paygrade haha). On a quick google it indeed seems that more sources do use Jo Ann Evansgardner. I'd say for now maybe just add another source with the Jo Ann Evansgardner spelling as a stopgap until you write the wikiarticle. Thanks for the explanation! Mujinga (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• 42 " were held across the world" i can see why you said that but I think "across the US and in Europe" would be more accurate
  • Done. Sammielh (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• sources are reliable and well-cited
• one last spotcheck - 16 & 17 (funnily enough 16 also covers Jo Ann Evansgardner!): 16 covers degrees, 17 covers dates. great this review is done! Mujinga (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.