Talk:Caroline Pafford Miller/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 07:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I will start on this in the morning. My approach is to review the article by sections, make any minor changes (links, punctuation, etc.) which may be reverted if you disagree, and then assess the article against the GA criteria. Please feel free to comment at any point. And, I am really looking forward to reviewing this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction and infobox

• The content in the introduction is good, but it is short for a GA article. Is there more information about Miller that you could summarize to further explain her notability and accomplishments? Perhaps that she received the Prix Femina Americain award, inducted into the Georgia Writers Hall of Fame, and wrote a second book?
• In the infobox: I added a red link piped to Green Hill Cemetery (Waynesville, North Carolina) to differentiate it from the one in Greensboro (also a red link right now) and added the location of the cemetery.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am working on the article for the cemetery, which is a National Register of Historic Places listing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This section looks good and is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Early years and education

General comment: This section is well-written and I have a couple of fine detail / nit-picky comments that are suggestions for consideration (not GA pass / fail issues)

• Regarding Her mother died shortly after that, during Caroline's junior year of high school. If her father died when she was in middle school, and her mother died when she was a junior in high school, it was at least a couple of years between the two deaths. I suggest removing "shortly after that,"
• If she didn't go to college, wouldn't it be better to say "English teacher" rather than English professor?
• Regarding Miller continued writing short stories seems confusing, because there is no mention of her writing short stories before this sentence. Perhaps something like "Miller wrote short stories" Or, explain what "continued" means (like when she began writing short stories)
• Should having them published be included in The stories were well received, and the small amounts she received supplemented the family income.
• I am wondering if "small" should be removed from the sentence. I don't know what "small" means, but if it was enough to supplement the family income, then it's not too small. Just a thought.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• This section looks good and is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

First novel and Pulitzer Prize

• Parenthesis are not needed for who read Miller's manuscript and forwarded her name (and manuscript) to her own agent.
• Please feel free to revert some minor edits here if you disagree:

• Capitalized Wiregrass Region, like the article title
• Added a few links
• Rolled up one sentence into the paragraph about the book. Single sentence paragraphs are discouraged. Per MOS:PARA, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text." Since it is about the same book, this reads well to be in the preceding paragraph.
• I combined a duplicate sentence about Mitchell and Gone with the Wind.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edit, this section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Divorce and second marriage

• I made these minor edits - italics and an apostrophe.
• I have no comments or suggestions, looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Later years

• I removed a comma between "private life". I have no comments or suggestions, this section looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• I added a link and a comma here. I have no comments or suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Works

• This section is not needed. It is redundant - there are only two works and both are described in the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I see this section is still here. Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• The article is well-written, but there are some suggestions for the introduction and Early life section... as well as a minor tweak for the First novel and Pulitzer Prize section. (1a, 1b)

This is now  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• The content is properly cited with reliable sources. There is no evidence of original research.
• Please take a look at the copyvio report. There are some sentences or part of sentences that are duplicated. Please ignore the titles and quotations, which are valid cases of duplication. (2d)

This is now  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article covers the major aspects and is focused. (3a, 3b)
• The article is written with a neutral point of view and is stable. (4,5)
• The one image of the historic marker is properly tagged and relevant. Because she is deceased, an image of her may be added to the article under non-free fair use rationale. I went ahead and took care of that.

The article looks great, there are just a few suggestions to consider and some minor rewording / paraphrasing needed to avoid copyvio issues. If you could take a look at the open comments, Gulbenk, that would be great!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, Thank you for your thorough review and thoughtful comments. The additions and corrections are greatly appreciated. I will undertake an expansion to the introduction, and have already made minor corrections along the lines you suggested. While I understand that certain suggestions are not GA pass/fail issues, I do want to address them if that results in a better article. But I will have to take issue with the concern about "small". While it is unquestionably nebulous, it fills the gap between "inconsequential" and "significant". During this period, it would probably have been referred to as "egg money". Except, in this case it was money to buy eggs rather than from selling them. As for copyvio, I will rephrase the Mountain home sentence to comply, but I may need additional guidance with the others. Many of them seem to be three or four words drawn from common expression, rather than the unique work/idea of another author, Gulbenk (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been very much my pleasure to work on this review, Gulbenk. It was easy because it was so well-written! There is no problem regarding the sentence with "small". I would be happy to paraphrase some of the language. Of course, common expressions of a couple of words, as well as titles and quotes, are not issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits for copyvio issues  Done with these edits. What is left are quotes, titles, and scenarios where there's only so many ways to word common situations (youngest child, at age of, etc.).–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article has passed as a GA article. Thanks so much for your edits, Gulbenk, looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)