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

Nominator: Hydrangeans (talk · contribs) 08:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this one a go-through! LEvalyn has volunteered to help out with the source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lede is good, though perhaps just a little on the short side.
• Gonna be a stickler for just a second Luftwaffe should use the "lang" template.
• Otherwise background section extremely solid.
• Anne Morrow Lindbergh, married to Charles Lindbergh oddly phrased, since there isn't really anyone else mentioned in the preceding sentences, and it makes you wonder if this is somehow a different Charles Lindbergh. Maybe "His wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh"?
• Might be good to say "poet Selden Rodman" or something so the name is not just dropped without context.
• Does attendance need to be wikilinked? This feels excessive.
• Meanwhile, anglophile might need to be linked.
• He accused the presidency of wanting to go to war? Wouldn't it be his administration? (or alternatively just Roosevelt himself)
• No problems with the Reception section, quite well written.
• Images are properly licensed.
• Great job on the alt-text.

@Hydrangeans: That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Thanks very much for the review! I've implemented some of the suggestions and have explanations for the others, though if they don't satisfy you I'll understand and can make further revisions:

• Thanks for introduced me to the "lang" template; I've implemented that for Luftwaffe.
• I tried to avoid referring to Anne Morrow Lindbergh as "his wife"/"Lindbergh's wife" since language like that can reinforce a sense that men possess women. Since their being married is too relevant to not bring up (because it's the reason she was proximate to Charles Lindbergh and trusted with a draft), I used "married" as a verb to maintain Anne Morrow Lindbergh as the agent/subject in the sentence and to avoid making her an object in the sentence. I know this can seem to some like a minor thing, to have so much meaning turn on a few words, but that's the reason for the word choice.
• Good point about Rodman; I've added "poet" in front of his name.
• Also a fair point about attendance; de-linked.
• I tend to be cautious about linking words in quotations, but you make a good point since anglophile might not be so familiar to readers. Now linked.
• I think presidency in this sense can be a synonym for administration (Merriam-Webster)? That's also how administration in this sense gets redirected, like Herbert Hoover administration redirecting to presidency of Herbert Hoover.

If you have any other questions or objections or insistences, feel free to say so. Many thanks again to you and LEvalyn! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for me - thank you for the timely response, and I'll get this promoted. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like to use a random number generator to pick 10 sources or 10% (whichever is greater) to check. For this article, I'll look at sources 1, 6, 8, 21, 25, 28, 34, 44, 46, and 50 as they are numbered in this diff. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Goodman (2008, p. 351). Checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Dunn (2013, p. 50). Checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Dunn (2013, pp. 54–55). Checks out. A real yikes on this guy's diary for sure. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21. Cole (1974, p. 160); Berg (1998, p. 425). Cole checks out. I wasn't able to easily access Berg, but all the info in this sentence is verified by Cole. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25. Dunn (2013, p. 300). At least in my copy, this quote actually appears on p. 302 of Dunn, not p. 300. Since my page numbers matched for the earlier citations to Dunn that I've checked, I'd advise amending the citation here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! The copy I can access also indicates it's 302. That's my bad. Should be fixed now. And many thanks, to you and Generalissima, for taking up the review! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28. Olson (2013, p. 386). Checks out. Also verifies the 8,000 in-person if you wanted to remove the citation in the middle of the sentence for that fact. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

34. Greenwald (1942, p. 152); Hart (2018, p. 2). Either one of these would be sufficient to fully verify this sentence. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

44. Berg (1998, p. 428). I still haven't been able to track down this source, but honestly, the rest of this source review is so squeaky-clean that I have no concerns. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

46. Greenwald (1942, p. 161). Checks out. I notice that the ellipses in the wiki version of this quote are just eliding the word "has"; I think you could consider just leaving the "has" in, since it's nice to leave a quote 'whole', but it works either way. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50. Cole (1974, p. 176). Checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with this source review! I have no suggested changes to be made. Overall, the sources look highly reliable and well-used. Generalissima, over to you! Hydrangeans, great work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]