Talk:Isabelle Urquhart/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dates and ref names

Urquhart was American, so all the dates should be mdy format: September 5, 1891. As far as ref names, I always hate to see the dreaded ":1" and ":2", etc. I suggest using Brown489 and Dale124 so that editors can easily see which source it came from. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure the citation names and dates you are refering to were automatically generated by visual editor. I personally use mdy when I create dates, but other editors seem to change the my dates with great frequency. I have given up on taking a stand. I don't think either are a major issue here since this is Wikipedia create data. Rublamb (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Blue Rider (talk · contribs) 12:01, 15 October 2023 (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

General comments

  • I have left some comments below. As I noted, I disagree with many of the reviewer's comments about wikilinking. I see that the reviewer gave this article a pass on 3a, but I do not see any section, or much other content on what the critics thought of her acting in most of her roles. For a GA article, wouldn't we need to look more into the contemporary reviews of her shows to find out more about what the critical response to her was? Also, she was married to a fellow actor. Did they ever appear together? Were her appearances with him important to her career? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    The article has some quotations about critics opinions. If she had appearances with her husband that were important, that would have been mentioned in the "Career" section, since that wasn't the case you assume the contrary. The criteria 3a is more than passable here, a GA needs to be broad, not extensive in its content. The Blue Rider 18:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I am asking the nominator to check on the joint appearances with her husband. We should not "assume" that it "would have been mentioned". A GA article needs to be adequately broad in coverage of its topic, so I am asking whether this has been done thoroughly yet, and to see if they can find any other key critical reviews of her major roles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Put the 3a criteria on hold per your comments. The Blue Rider 20:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Rublamb: please, as the nominator, voice your opinions regarding the proposed suggestions. I cannot further argue with someone who continuously acts in defiance to any of the GA review suggestions; you can also clearly see Ssilvers' confrontational behaviour in the talk page towards the 20-minute reviewer and the nominator. The Blue Rider 19:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Note that I do not have any disagreement with the reviewer's other suggestions. Where I disagree, I have said so, and their subsequent replies have not persuaded me that they are correct in those instances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@The Blue Rider: I don't have an issue with your suggestions and find them reasonable and helpful. Some terms have been previously discussed as needing clarification. Previously, I did not find good Wikipedia links for theater terms, but given that two neutral reviewers have both found them to be jargon rather than common terms, I either need to revise the terminology, find a link, of add an efn. Since there are three possible options, this can be reasonably achieved. @Ssilvers, you indicated that you did not have time to pursue GA status for this article at this time, so please do let me handle this. I know you have many GA articles and mean well, but it is too confusing to add a third person to this conversation. Thanks for understanding. Rublamb (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I will monitor this. Feel free to make the changes that I have not objected to, but I have indicated those which I think are wrong or not helpful to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Ssilvers, please try to be more lax and reach a consensus, like I tried to do with New York linking, or else this review will be indefinitely on hold, which I'm sure is not what you want. The Blue Rider 20:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I always try to reach consensus. But New York City should [update:] not be linked. The MOS very clearly says that we should not link: "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes ... locations (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear)...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I never seen an GA article where we don't either wikilink the city or specify the country of the birth place of the subject. I'm well of aware of that paragraph but the manual also says to take into consideration your demographic bias. The Blue Rider 21:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
We DO specify her birthplace. We say in the first sentence that she was an American. You don't need to repeat it. Stop accusing me of "demographic bias". If we said that she was French, we would not need to link Paris or say, Paris, France. Look again and you will see this is true of Americans born in New York City in FA articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
My suggestions are in the Early life not in the lead section. If you look through the GA article list you will see plenty of articles with well-known cities linked. The Blue Rider 21:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, see FAs of NYC-born Americans like Aaron Sorkin. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Manhattan is wikilink so no need to link the city per MOS:GEOLINK. Here are also some examples of infamous cities, NYC included, being linked, Henry M. Crane, Wilhelm Cauer, Stephen Harper, Xochitl Gomez, James L. Brooks. The Blue Rider 21:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ssilvers, It is okay if you do not agree with all of these recommendations, but you can't presume to have authority over the GA process because you are not a neutral party to the process. Specifically, you have previously reviewed/edited my work on this article and added some content yourself. The guidelines for a GA review a really clear on not having someone who is involved with creating the article act as a reviewer. Many of the recommendations have now been made twice which is pretty compelling to me. If @The Blue Rider and I agree on recommendations, I do not require your approval to make a change. That is not practical and not part of a GA review. I appreciate your comments, but must respectfully ask that you honor the established GA process between the reviewer and the submitter. You may well find that my solutions create a strong article. At least, that is my goal. As always, thanks for your interest. Rublamb (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
What? I have no authority. But I will oppose changes that I know are wrong. Don't panic. Just make the article great, and so will I. It may be that I will not be in the majority on some issues, of course I know that. But if I disagree strongly with something, there is a good reason for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This comment is very exemplary of your condescending attitude. You know you are not the holder of the truth nor a know-all, do you? The Blue Rider 21:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

All suggestions have been addressed by the nominator, Rublamb. I will be giving a ~1 day period to @Ssilvers: voice any potential disagreement with the changes made to the article and for us to reach a consensus. Though it's worth stressing that the final word is on the reviewer and nominator. Thank you. The Blue Rider 01:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I made some minor copy edits to the text and added another citation for "london season" that states that it ended in June. I am happy to hear that Rublamb researched the question of further critical reviews, which answers my question about that. The additional information about the marriage also answers my other question, so I have no further reservations about the promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I will be promoting this article then. The Blue Rider 08:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

  • Per MOS:LEADCITE, only statements that are likely to be challenged need an inline citation. With that in mind, the first sentence of the article doesn't need those two sources.
 Done Rublamb (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I have WP:NPOV concerns with the second sentence of her article being a quotation saying she was a "queen of comic opera" instead of being a descriptive statement about her life. Could this phrase be put in other part of the lead?
 Done Rublamb (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
No, I think this refers to the "theatre season" which is similar to the school year (so it probably means excluding the summer). Some "theatre seasons" might refer to just the period from about November to March, when London theatres were busiest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. The readers won't understand what a "London season" is so a clarification is needed in the article, perhaps an explanatory note. The Blue Rider 18:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done Although theater season is in the dictionary, it has yet to make it to Wikipedia. I changed "London season" to "London theatrical season" and also added an efn explaining what that meant in the 19th century. The efn is in both the lede and the text as the reader might have questions at either point. Rublamb (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Excellent idea, much clearer now. Thanks. The Blue Rider 21:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comic opera is used six times and light opera twice, so to standardize I suggest the following: light opera → comic opera
 Done I saw that before and had added a link to light opera, but you are correct that it is easier if the reader doesn't have to follow a link to understand the text. And this change also removes a link from the article. Rublamb (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Why? They are both correct and, in this context, synonymous. It's like saying that a critic "wrote", "stated", "said", "commented" something -- you want to mix it up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes they are synonymous but to avoid any kind of confusion by the reader that the words mean different opera genres, using only one of them would be better. The Blue Rider 18:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The "even" is MOS:EDITORIAL. As so, I suggest the following: where even small roles paid better → where she played smaller roles that paid better
 Done Rublamb (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • In Other principal roles in New York followed., either state the roles or remove the sentence, otherwise we are just cliffhanging the readers.
The principal roles that she played after Erminie were for short productions, as the body of the article below specifies. So none of them, by itself, was particularly important to her career, although, collectively, they show that she was in demand to play principal roles at this time. How about "other principal light opera roles in New York"?
Looks okay to me. The Blue Rider 18:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done I incorporated both ideas and also changed principal to lead (that is what principal means in this instance and lead in clearer) Rublamb (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this premium pricing, as that article describes it. That article says that it means an artificially high price based on marketing perception, where in this case it means a higher price by including an additional product (the trading card) along with the tobacco. A more modern comparison would be to chewing gum that includes a baseball card -- the consumer gets something of value, not just bragging rights. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, you're right indeed. The Blue Rider 18:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done Although premium is the correct term, I changed it to "promotional incentive" which I think will be clearer to most readers and also has an article to link to. Rublamb (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Early life

  • New York City → New York City, United States
 Done with the addition of the state Rublamb (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This is wrong, and I will strongly oppose it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the correct thing to do, stop assuming geographical knowledge. I'm also willing to die on this hill. The Blue Rider 19:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Me too. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done Rublamb (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This would be very clearly MOS:OVERLINKing. I strongly object to this suggestion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The section only has 1 wikilink, you're not overlinking. The Blue Rider 18:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Let me be clear. We do not link country names and major cities like NYC, London, Paris and Tokyo. I am certain of it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Either we wikilink it or we specify it's in the United States. It's up to you. The Blue Rider 19:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not the one who brought this to GA, so threats do not impress me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
If you didn't care so much about this article state you wouldn't be here whining about some linking suggestions. The Blue Rider 19:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I care about the quality of the article, and thank you for your review. Where I disagree with you and believe that your suggestion is wrong and not helpful, I will say so. I am not whining, and I am refraining from uncivilly characterizing your opinions here. I will say that a key skill for a reviewer that I do not see here is to probe the nominator on the coverage of the content, as well as to consider technical aspects [add: the second of which you did thorougly]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
In the first comments you were disagreeing with the suggestions and clarifying the questions raised politely and everything was going well, but then you started using a more aggressively toned phrasing and everything derailed. Yes, I made two linking suggestions mistakes, premium and The New York Comedy Theatre, but you were out of line by calling out the reliability of my GA review. Look at the amount of mistakes that are corrected when doing a GA review, do you see the reviewer being confrontational with the nominator over their mistakes? No. The Blue Rider 20:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The broadness of the article is the hardest criteria to infer. I'm not going to be googling about the article subject to see if there is more information out there, but if I see something seemingly important is only briefly mentioned in the article I will ask to expand- like I did with the 2nd Urquhart run away. If that information isn't even on the article it's quite hard for the reviewer to consider it in the first instance. What technical aspects are talking about? The Blue Rider 20:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I do not intend to be impolite, and I am sorry you were offended. I have already suggested, based on my long experience with this era of musical theatre, that there might be a lot more important information in contemporary reviews. This was long before the advent of the internet, so googling is often not an adequate way to check coverage for these sorts of articles -- one needs to check newspaper archives. Also, she was married to another actor for 6 years, so a reasonable question is whether or not they made significant joint appearances, especially during this era, when it was extremely common and often defined theatrical careers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Googling, going to a library, whatever researching mean. Another actor? Other than Guy Standing? Thank you for your expert input, your suggestions surely have been duly noted by the nominator. We shall wait for him to address the suggestions. The Blue Rider 20:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Just Guy Standing, no others that I know of. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ssilvers, I did use newspapers as sources for this article. As a MLIS-degreed librarian who also has a history nasters, I don't just Google for sources; that is a pretty offensive accusion to make against any experienced editor. I had previously looked in newspapers and other theatrical publications to see if the couple were in shows together. He was a leading man doing dramas and melodrams with Lionel Barrymore at the time of their marriage, so they just weren't a good fit for joint efforts. I have added the only mention I found of them ever working together--unfortunately, it is a short mention that ran in dozens of newspapers without mentioning the title or location of the show. Since it was a flop, I had not though it notable, but do understand that it might be of interest to some readers. Thus, it is now inserted. I also added the other info I found on their divorce. Based on the short-lived nature of her retirememnt (she was headlining again the next year), I don't think their relationship was along one. Rublamb (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
If you look again, you will see that I did *not* accuse you of any such thing. I merely asked whether a newspaper search had been done (especially for critical reviews), and I am very pleased that it has. My discussion with the reviewer about googling was only in regard to what sort of research would be necessary. I never stated that googling is all that had been done, only that I thought the GA review should make sure that a newspaper search had been completed. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done Rublamb (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Was her 2nd run-away successful? How did she become a chorus girl? Wasn't she already a chorus girl in the convent school?
 Done Rublamb (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
A chorus girl was a young woman who appeared in chorus roles in the professional theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. The first 2 questions still stand though. The Blue Rider 18:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


Career

  • Can early and later career be put as subsections under a Career section?

 Done Great idea. Rublamb (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Early career

  • Is Richard D'Oyly Carte and E. E. Rice Opera Companies the name of the company? Or each of them had their own opera company?
Each of them ran opera companies. In Carte's case, he ran multiple opera companies with slightly different names. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
In that case, remove the capital letter from "Opera" and "Companies". The Blue Rider 20:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll take care of this one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done as discussed above Rublamb (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done I chose the option of linking to comedy drama (mentioned below) as that is the best fit. I had tried to find a link for this before without luck, so am glad to include this information. Rublamb (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, I think that is a bad idea. That is a very bad article and differs in many respects from the article where you arrive when you link to Serio-comic, which is another very poor article. I do not think the link would add anything that is helpful in the slightest, and, indeed, I think it is simply not applicable to this beyond what people can imagine it means. In this case, the source uses the term because the opera was billed as "serio-comedic".
Again? The article class-assessment/state shouldn't play a role in whether to wikilink it or not, perhaps the reason it is such a poor article its because it barely has any links to it, which means lower visibility to editors that could improve it. I don't care whether spoudaiogeloion or comedy drama are linked but "serio-comedic" needs a link. The Blue Rider 18:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
No, the reason that those two articles are poor is because of the bad research and writing that has gone into them, or perhaps because they should not be articles at all, as their creators obviously don't know what they are talking about. Linking to them would be harmful to readers of this article by misleading them and wasting their time in clicking over to an awful article that adds nothing. I disagree with you: the purpose of adding a link is to give helpful information to readers of this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done Rublamb (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • the following season → the following theatrical season
 Done Rublamb (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • What are "small utility parts"?
 Done I linked to bit parts which is the closest I can find in Wikipedia to the definition below. Rublamb (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
They are small roles where an actor comes on and does something useful in a scene. A waiter might serve drinks to the principal characters. An airline agent might take their tickets. A police officer might take the murderer off stage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • successful seasons → successful theatrical seasons
 Done Rublamb (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Don't you think that, by this point, the reader knows that we are talking about a theatrical career? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's more than clear that she was a theatre actress but it isn't clear which type of season we are talking about. The Blue Rider 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
That theatre opened in 1909, so this is certainly wrong. Please be more careful when suggesting links -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done I added an efn to explain the difference between these two theaters. Rublamb (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done Response: all references to light opera are now removed as discussed above.
This is the first time it is used in the body of the article, so it belongs there. I am becoming worried about this GA review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
You're quite derogatory, aren't you? If you weren't so worried about my GA review maybe it would have occurred to you that this suggestion is taking into consideration that all instances of light opera were going to be substituted to comic operas. The Blue Rider 18:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comic opera is used six times and light opera twice, so to standardize I suggest the following: light opera → comic opera
 Done Rublamb (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussed above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Later career

Response: In looking at Vaudeville, the various parts of the show were called sketches, whether comedic or musical. The article [[sketch comedy]l indicates that vaudeville comedy bits evolved into sketch comedy. However, since we don't know the specific content of her sketch, we can't say whether or not it falls under sketch comedy.
Alright, I also did see that sketch comedy included vaudeville comedy in its history section so I thought it could be referring to that. Thanks for the explanation. The Blue Rider 23:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove duplicated wikilink from How He Lied to Her Husband.
 Done Rublamb (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Trade cards

  • Clarify that Newsboy and Falk are tobacco companies.

 Done and found another link in the process Rublamb (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That's awesome. The Blue Rider 22:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal life

  • Add an interwiki link to junior
Also MOS:OVERLINK. This is a common English word. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Junior is more commonly used to refer to young people, not a disciple. Have some self-awareness to your demographic bias. The Blue Rider 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean "disciple"? He was younger than her, so he was her junior. Not sure what you mean. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it's because I'm not an English native speaker but the way I interpreted that phrase, eight years her junior, was that Guy Standing was her subordinate, that is, Urquhart was mentoring/teaching him how to act. That's the reasoning behind my linking suggestion. The Blue Rider 20:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 Done Fixed so that it specifically says he was eight years younger than she was. So, no link is needed. Rublamb (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Stability

  • Last edited on 9th Oct. and only one revert (it was self-made); the article is stable.

Images

  • The lead image needs a copyright WP:TAG. Other than that, all images are correctly tagged, relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.

 Done Or, at least, I hope I did this correctly. Rublamb (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes you did! The Blue Rider 01:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio

  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector points to 33,8% due to quotations.

Sources

  • All sources numbers are from this version. Checked source #1, #3, #7, #19, #23, #28, #41, #42, #49, #50. Everything is in order.

WikiProject Women in Green: 20-minute assessment

As requested, I'm providing a quick 20-minute assessment of this article, as per WikiProject Women in Green's support to help prepare articles for a full Good Article (GA) review. Isabelle Urquhart's article definitely looks like it's nearly ready -- a GA reviewer may request additional edits, but I'm not seeing many major issues or obstacles to a successful review. I've listed a few comments and suggestions below:

  • Prose and grammar looks pretty strong. Couple of queries: What are "utility parts"? And why did she have reservations about playing a 97-year-old?
Utility parts are minor characters that help to move the plot forward. The role has utility in the scene. For example, in an airport scene, Alanna and ssilvers are boarding a plane while arguing about who forgot to lock the house. The ticket agent who takes their boarding passes is a utility part. I added the word "small", but it could be a speaking'singing part, though it is not intended to have character development or emotional importance in the piece. As for her reservations about playing the 97-year-old, Urquhart just said, in the interview, that as she was only 17, she was "not sure that I relished playing a nonogenarian". Our readers will have to draw their own further conclusions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I would recommend moving the "Sources" section after "References," as MOS:NOTES says that short citations should come before full book citations.
Right, done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Earwig's copy-vio tool raises no alarms -- closest text matches are quotations (properly attributed) or short standard phrases that can't easily be rephrased. Did a spot-check of other citations, found one that seems inaccurate: "Urquhart was a popular model for cabinet cards..." (source doesn't comment on her popularity).
But the whole section discussed half a dozen companies that used her as a model for cabinet cards. The list could go on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Two sources may be challenged on reliability: The Cabinet Card Gallery (blog without clear author or editorial oversight) and Worthpoint (user-generated content for auction sales). These may need to be removed or replaced with stronger sources.
These actually show the cabinet cards; the cards themselves are primary sources. We are not relying on the veracity of the what the site says. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • A recommendation: don't link a source to Google Books if there isn't a full preview of the relevant text, as it won't help readers. It's okay if some sources are only available offline, but you'll need to make sure that you have access to them before starting a GA review.
I don't know who requested this review, but I am not the one bringing this to GA. I don't think I was the one who originally researched this article. If you want to go to GA, you'll need to do this work. I do not believe that the article is ready for GA. Unless you are undertaking to do the additional research and grunt work, I strongly suggest that you do NOT nominate it for GA review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Seems stable, no current edit wars. Appears to be two editors contributing major edits. If this article is nominated for a GA review, just make sure you're both on the same page when responding! :-)
I am not interested in taking this to GA at this time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: I provided this 20-minute assessment on request from another editor. If you are not interested in taking this article to GA, that's perfectly fine, but somebody else may want to take on that task. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, no problem, thanks. See my response to Rublamb's note below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Well illustrated with photos. The first photo in the lead section may require a more specific tag/license to show that it meets public domain requirements. If it was published only in the U.S., and if you know the source and year of publication, you can determine whether it meets the "published before 1928" criteria, which is probably the easiest one to meet.
Same. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have any questions about my comments, let me know. Good luck with this article! Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave, thanks for the 20 minute review. Rublamb (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ssilvers, I requested this review as part of the Women in Green Around the World in 30 Days edit-a-thon. I know you have worked on this article, most importanty reviewing and enhancing the extensive expansion I made some time ago. You do not have to be part of the GA nomination process--you have already been a big help. This is something I am willing to do. Rublamb (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, very good. Now I understand what's going on. If you are willing to dig further into the sources, then by all means. I apologize for being overly suspicious!: I have been on the receiving end of quite a few situations over the years where I had started an article and some random person thought it was pretty good and nominated it for GA, and then I was left holding the bag and had to do all the work myself, even though I had not intended to take the article to GA. Good luck. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Not a problem--I realize my edit note about GA the other day didn't give you a heads up on the 20 minute review. I added most of the sources, so feel pretty good about taking this forward. I doubled checked--the lede photo is from a 19th century brochure and seems to have the correct license. Rublamb (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 05:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

(
)
Isabelle Urquhart, c. 1892
Isabelle Urquhart, c. 1892
  • ... that Broadway actress Isabelle Urquhart (pictured) started a fashion trend in 1886 when she stopped wearing petticoats to show off her figure?Source: "Over this innovation of Urquhart, men raved, and women, taking the hint, became imitators. Petticoats disappeared from female attire. In place of the bulging hourglass type of dress, adored by the Dutch, American women became an anatomy, a slender, clinging thing of beauty. ... This startling change in female attire followed so pat upon the appearance and action of Miss Urquhart that I have ventured to credit her with its origin" from: Wilson, Francis. Francis Wilson's Life of Himself. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1924. p. 86. via Google Books. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Francis_Wilson_s_Life_of_Himself/yp4qAAAAMAAJ?hl=en

Improved to Good Article status by Rublamb (talk). Self-nominated at 00:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Isabelle Urquhart; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Article looks good: nicely sourced, long enough, promoted (just) within the window to GA. QPQ is done. Image is appropriately licensed, and I can see no issues with plagiarism, copyvio or other major concerns. I do think the hook is a bit unclear: was "show[ing] off her figure" the reason she wore petticoats or the reason she stopped? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @UndercoverClassicist, the reason she stopped. Is there a better way to say this? Rublamb (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
      • How about (ALT1) "... that Broadway actress Isabelle Urquhart (pictured) started a fashion trend in 1886 by giving up petticoats to show off her figure?" It's not perfect at all: it's tricky both to get rid of the word stop and to avoid the ambiguity if we don't. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
        • I feel like "giving up" is vague and not typically used to describe clothing. We give up chocolate or smoking, but we wear clothing. What is the issue with the word "stop"? I can't diagram a sentence here, but the original version is grammatically correct, with the adverb clause in the correct position to make sense to a reader. If another version is truly needed, maybe this will work: Broadway actress Isabelle Urquhart started a fashion trend when she revealed her figure on stage by not wearing petticoats Or Broadway actress Isabelle Urquhart started a fashion trend when she decided to reveal her figure on stage by not wearing petticoats. Rublamb (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist:, Let's go with ALT2 below. Thanks for working on this with me. Rublamb (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • (ALT2) "... that Broadway actress Isabelle Urquhart (pictured) started a fashion trend when she decided to reveal her figure on stage by not wearing petticoats?"
Happy to approve that; suggest linking Broadway, but that can be done by the promoting admin. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


Duke red link

I have boldly swapped the red link Duke, Sons and Company to pipe to American Tobacco Company and changed name to W. Duke, Sons & Company (Washington Duke and sons Benjamin Newton Duke and James Buchanan Duke) which was the forerunner of ATC. (See also the Duke name on the Cameo cigarette packet image on the ATC article. Perhaps that is Urquhart?) JennyOz (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That's great. I was stumped as to why I couldn't find Duke & Sons in Wikipedia but didn't dig deeper. Rublamb (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Article

User:Rublamb, I just went through the history of the edits on this article, and I see that I had misremembered what had happened here. I see that you actually did much more work on this article, over a longer period of time, than I had realized or remembered. Indeed, in retrospect, you have done excellent work here, and though I doubt you will fully forgive me for being so suspicious, I congratulate you on the achievement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers thanks for the apology and recognition. @The Blue Rider and @Alanna the Brave will probably also appreciate seeing this. Rublamb (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Rublamb -- and congrats! Great work. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isabelle_Urquhart/Archive_1&oldid=1188858599"