Jump to content

Talk:Sarah Yorke Jackson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarah Yorke Jackson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 14:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely impressed by your progress in the WikiCup and in the First Ladies GT, and I'm happy to contribute! Look forward to reviewing! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: The article is already very high quality, just some minor tweaks needed. Fantastic job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MyCatIsAChonk I've added the use templates and I also fixed the clarification needed tag that was added after your review. Technically citation formatting is an FA requirement, but it doesn't matter because I found it was redundant to a better source in each instance, so I removed it altogether. The image is a bit trickier. The best I could find for a source was this, but I'm not sure if that webpage is sufficient to say that our version is the one by Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl in 1833. There's also this, if this webpage is sufficient to establish that it's public domain. Ideally, I'd like to have both paintings. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien, I think I figured it out- the whitehousehistory.org source is good, I was further confused by "c. 1921" but it was completed then and painted much earlier. I went ahead and fixed the file page and the caption in the article. Thanks for clarifying the Ref 6 thing- this article is good to go. Great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is well-written and free of typos.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Add Template:Use American English and Template:Use mdy dates

Complies with MoS standards.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Ref 6 needs to be properly formatted

Refs are properly formatted.

2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Citations are frequent and sources used are well-balanced. Most sources are reliable books, and web sources are reliable.
2c. it contains no original research. Article contains frequent citations that back the information provided- no OR.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Despite being rather short, I believe it does cover Jackson's life well, and explains the lack of info.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Stays focused throughout.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No visible bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. File:Sarah Yorke Jackson (1).jpg - Source link is broken, the image isn't present on the webpage; author and date should be fixed, I'd be very surprised if this portrait was painted in 2009; and the copyright tag needs a US tag- {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} should be right

Image is properly tagged with copyright status

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Official portrait in infobox is relevant and properly captioned.
7. Overall assessment.
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.


Birth date

[edit]

@Thebiguglyalien, @SassyDetective1999
Starting this thread due to the misconception regarding her birthday. I unknowingly dove head first into this hole of mess. The actual day is unknown and I looked at census reports, her obituary, her gravestone, and marriage records.

  • In the 1870 federal census, her age was 66 and inferred birth year was 1804
  • In her obituary, she died at the age of 81 and inferred birth year was 1806
  • In the 1863 septennial census, she was 60 and her birth year was 1803 or 1804
  • Her grave said July 1805
  • In Appletons' cyclopædia of American biography, it says she was born in 1806

Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the July 16, 1803, date was first added with an edit in 2007. I haven't been able to determine whether it's a case of WP:CITOGENESIS, but it's not unlikely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]