Talk:Lotta Dempsey

Lotta Dempsey has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 31, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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 writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anti-war Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement 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.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: Peace and Diplomacy (2023)

This article was created or improved during the Peace and Diplomacy initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2023. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

Photos

See discussion of photos here. SusunW (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. 123Writer ^talk 16:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Lotta Dempsey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 17:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to take this one. Good luck!

1TWO3Writer Thanks for looking at her. I think I have answered all of your queries. I disagree with you on the autobiography, but have reworked it anyway following your advice. Please ping me, if we need to have more discussion. I appreciate your work to improve the article. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 31 August 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.	See below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See below.
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.	Consistent use of sfn citation template. Bibliography contains all necessary info for each source.
	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).	All spot-checks OK.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Every paragraph has multiple in-line citations.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio issues. Quotes are properly attributed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See below.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Don't think there's anything un-neutral: sources clearly consider her an influential feminist journalist.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit not my own from 8 days ago.
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.	All photos are valid public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All photos follow captioning guidelines and are relevant to their sections.
	7. Overall assessment.

Discussion

1a

She was also proud of gaining an interview with the sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, who rarely spoke with the press, and of being the first Canadian woman to discuss his study with him. I suggest: She was the first Canadian woman to interview the sexologist Alfred Kinsey, who rarely spoke with the press. I don't think her being proud needs to be mentioned, but if you disagree, mention who claims she was proud (Mary Louise Adams) so it's properly attributed.

done SusunW (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1b

I would suggest splitting the lead into three paragraphs: bio intro and early career, later career and death, and awards.

I do not know if ...and from a young age wanted to be a reporter. Her father insisted she should become a teacher, but after two months of teaching, Dempsey resigned... is necessary in the lead.

Done SusunW (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2b

Spot-check: 1, 17, 23, 35, 40, 59, 66, 69

3b

The book told her life story with her typical humour, relaying missteps she had made, like stepping off a boat and landing in the water rather on land, crashing into Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh when she attempted a curtsy, and exiting from her bathroom in a hotel inadvertently into the corridor without her key or clothes. I don't think all of those anecdotes are exactly relevant. Perhaps could be replaced with how the book was critically received?

Except that those are from a review and are the most often reported anecdotes about her mishaps, so I think probably signature events. I've removed them, but I think one gets a lot less of a sense of who she was with them gone. I've scoured newspapers and come up with 3 more reviews, all of which give anecdotes, but I've left them out and given a brief summary of all 3. It isn't likely to have "critical reviews", as it's not an academic work, and reviews were written by fellow journalists. By definition an autobiography tells one's own version of their life, how is a reviewer going to analyze a subjective view objectively? Perhaps you like it better now? SusunW (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. And all your other edits. Well done! 123Writer ^talk 16:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.