Talk:Lucinda Lee Dalton

Photo ID

The image File:Alice Louise Reynolds 2.gif appears very similar, if not identical, to File:Alice Louise Reynolds 1914 Banyan.PNG. Although the former is somewhat distorted (skewed? compressed laterally), compare the shadows and highlights and hair around the ears. I could be wrong, but if these are the same person, then one is mislabeled. Perhaps Rachel Helps (BYU) could investigate? Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• 
  "Lucinda Lee Dalton"
• 
  "Alice Louise Reynolds"

Good heavens, you're right! The source for the Alice Louise Reynolds photo--the Banyan--had a very clear caption, so I believe it is probably her. I'll try to fix my error.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Now hopefully a photograph of Dalton can be found! --Animalparty! (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Animalparty, Rachel Helps (BYU) Whoops, I uploaded the photo again, finding it on the internet at The Biography of Sarah Lucinda Lee Dalton, 1847-1925. That photo has also made it on to other genealogy websites like https://www.geni.com/people/Sarah-Dalton/6000000000785683671. Any possibility that it is Lucinda Lee Dalton? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it's definitely Alice Louise Reynolds. I believe the confusion stems from the uncaptioned images at the start of this Sunstone article. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) Sorry about that. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lucinda Lee Dalton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  15:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "She shared her views via both prose and poetry" - seems a bit confusing. More specifically, what type of prose? Through articles in newspapers etc?

   "Dalton's family sacrificed the help an eldest daughter brings to a household by helping her attend school" - I don't understand this sentence. You mean that the eldest daughter is supposed to stay at home and not go to school?

   "Since she lived in rural areas" - Since she lived in a rural area

   "In her many contributions to the Women's Exponent, she is often credited as "L.D.D."" - this seems awkward to have as a standalone sentence amongst paragraphs. Also, is it relevant? If you don't want to remove it then I recommend merging this with another paragraph so it doesn't disrupt the flow of the prose

   A harvref error needs fixing (Harv error: link from #CITEREFSheree2002 doesn't point to any citation.)

   Also, there's an error in the notes section

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is well researched and broad for the subject, as well as a good read. I'll leave this on hold until all of the concerns are dealt with. JAGUAR  11:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Jaguar. I know that GA reviews take a long time, and I hope to do one or two myself soon! I replaced the Harvard reference with a regular citation template, and I reworded the sentences you noted were confusing/awkward. Do you have any remaining concerns? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that! There are no remaining concerns so I'll pass this now. It is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out, thus it meets the criteria. Reviewing GANs are easy – I've done over 600 of them! JAGUAR  20:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucinda Lee Dalton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308024212/http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/year-of-polygamy-lucinda-dalton-feminist-mormon-pioneer-episode-54/ to http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/year-of-polygamy-lucinda-dalton-feminist-mormon-pioneer-episode-54/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)