Talk:Wilma Mankiller/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 12:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please reply individually under each of my comments and mark with  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. This article looks like it is in great shape! Catrìona (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

After reading closely, here are some inital thoughts:

• I've made some changes to the prose for conciseness, minor grammar errors and WP:Words to watch, although there's still room for improvement in those areas.

If you have specific words/phrases that you would like changed, advise and I will be happy to review them. But the above statement is rather vague and I am not sure what you want changed. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• her project in Kenwood won federal recognition Be more specific, such as mentioning the award won

 Done SusunW (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• A liberal member of the Democratic Party, I feel this is not specific. Mainstream Democrats typically identify as "liberals", whereas the left wing of the party is called "leftist" and the right wing of the party is called "centrist". We could just say "A Democrat" here.

 Done SusunW (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• ethnic and gender minorities is a very new term and not one with wide currency. How were these students described at the time?

We differ on this. Not very new terms, nor particularly ones without "wide currency". The terms were coined in the 1930s and 1940s (ethnography, anthropology), they have been widely used in policymaking at the international level since the 1950s, and academic fields opened to study them widely (women's/gender/ethnic studies) in the 1970s and 1980s. We don't get to state what we know (they were called radicals, extremists, militants, renegades), but rather, we summarize what source documents say. Johnson, 1994, p 65: "civil rights movement, Black Power, the rise of LaRaza, the Hispanic movement, the stirring of the new feminism, the rise of the New Left Generation, and the Third World Strikes"..."the unrest among the emerging minority ethnic and gender groups". Kallen, 1999, p 91: "African Americans were gaining strength and becoming more vociferous in their demand for civil rights....The Black Power Movement...Hispanic leaders...Vietnam, peace demonstrations...Native American militancy". Short of listing all of the radical groups that were in play at that time, (and then who do you put in, who do you leave out) I'm not sure how to change this as the phrase ethnic and gender minorities is short and summarizes the spectrum. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to "ethnic minorites", but the phrase "gender minorities" shows almost nil results on Google Books[1]. From past discussions on articles such as Talk:Stonewall riots, there seems to be a general consensus to use historically appropriate terminology when referring to historical events. From my understanding, the gay rights movement was pretty embryonic before the 1970s, and it's not clear to me what the relevance is to this article. Since it is an umbrella term, I would support "ethnic minorities" without mention of sexual/gender minorities. Catrìona (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Except that discounts that she was involved in the Women's Liberation Movement in California and it influenced her decision to end her marriage. I changed it to say "Then in the late 1960s, activism among students increased and specifically, a group of students from the University of California at Berkeley, Los Angeles and Santa Cruz, along with students at San Francisco State began protesting against the Vietnam War and in favor of civil rights for ethnic minorities and women". Is that a satisfactory compromise? SusunW (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Since I had not heard the term before, I hadn't realized that it was referring to the women's rights movement. Catrìona (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• She had been encouraged to continue her studies and began planning a career Can we be more specific? Who/what encouraged her?

added "by other activists" SusunW (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• chose to work on programs and issues rather than policy to minimize the hostility to her election I think this could be clearer. When I first read it, it wasn't clear why "policy" would be covered by the legislative branch but "programs" by the executive branch, since it would seem like both could be originated by either branch. I think a better way to phrase this is she did not involve herself in tribal legislation and focused on areas of government that the council did not control.

 Done SusunW (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• various power brokers who?

Can't answer what the source doesn't say. Agnew, 2004, p 218: "Although Mankiller spoke out frequently and stridently against past and contemporary injustice, her measured criticism and calm demeanor made her welcome in the office of the nation’s economic and political power brokers". SusunW (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• When Mankiller left office, the population of the Cherokee Nation had increased from 55,000 to 196,000 citizens. What were the reasons for the dramatic expansion?

That would constitute original research. The source doesn't say (I've corrected the figures per the article), but there was a change in the perception of what it meant to be a Native American. From the 1940s to 1975 government policy had reinforced that indigenous people should be mainstreamed into the larger culture. Once the government changed its stance and leaders like Mankiller (she wasn't the only one, but perhaps the most visible) spoke to mainstream audiences to overcome stereotypes and reinforce the rights of Native people to be sovereign nations, people began acknowledging their heritage as Native American. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• You might consider including her assistant chiefship in the infobox

No idea how to do that. I am not remotely technical. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Using dates in section headers is not usual in biographical articles. This isn't in the MOS (either for or against—so not an issue with GA criteria), and I'm neutral on them.

I just had a review of another article where it was insisted that I put them in. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• MX added the word "American" to the lede. I'm not convinced that's an improvement. First, from my admittedly limited experience with American Indian people, many of them seem to identify with their tribe more than as "Americans". Second, we already state that she was a Cherokee, which is a subset of "American", and more specific.

I totally agree with your assessment. I didn't remove it, as I thought it might come up as a discussion point in the GA. We state that she is Cherokee, we state that she is Native American. It is redundant to insert "American". SusunW (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very comprehensive and high quality article. I recommend that you take it through FAC next, although I can't help with that as I have no experience with FAs.

Thanks, me either. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2018 (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

Thanks for picking this one up so quickly Catrìona. Let me know if there is anything I need to do to help it pass the GA criteria. SusunW (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona I think I have addressed each of your questions, though I am unsure if all of them adequately address your concerns. Please advise if you need me to provide additional information/changes. Thank you again for the review. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm promoting because it meets all the criteria and a spot check of the sources seems to check out. I will nominate the article at DYK for frontpage exposure. I recommend a request for WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors copyediting, and either a peer review or a FAC mentorship request as next steps. Good luck with FAC! Catrìona (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)