Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Margaret O'Reilly/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2015 [1].

Mary Margaret O'Reilly edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a woman who rose from the ranks to become the effective head of the Bureau of the Mint for many years, at a time when such things weren't usually accomplished by women. I doubt this will ever get that many hits, but I think it's worthy. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments edit

-- recusing myself from coord duties; I spotted a couple of formatting thingies and then became interested enough to review in earnest...

When copyediting I tried to get consistency with (non)capitalisation of position titles but I'm open to discussion on them -- even with all the titles I contend with in my military bios I don't think it's always obvious what's best.
Structure and level of detail seem appropriate, and tone is neutral.
"She was not interviewed when the Mint in 1944 investigated how several 1933 double eagles, never officially released, had come onto the market, an omission Burdette finds unusual." -- is the implication that there may have been some level of corruption, or incompetence?
Sources appear prima facie reliable to this admitted non-expert, and no major formatting issues leapt out, but looks like you need a "subscription required" caveat for FN16.
Image licensing looks acceptable to me.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Her successor, Howard, actually became somewhat notorious (and remains in bad repute among numismatists who care about that sort of thing) because he confiscated those 1933 double eagles. Why he would not talk to O'Reilly about it, given that she might know stuff, is a bit unclear. I guess incompetence, but we really don't know. Burdette is not very illuminating on this point, but as he was an expert witness for the defense in the trial about the ten 1933 double eagles a few years back, I'm inclined to take his word for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging Ian Rose to see if my replies and changes were satisfactory.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my tardiness in checking back -- I just tweaked some formatting and I think it's all cool now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Looking forward to seeing this one on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images edit

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Preceded by position created – this is probably not needed, given that the infobox already shows that she was the 1st Assistant Director
Religion Catholic is in the infobox, but not in the article prose (also not referenced)

I felt her work for Catholic charities established she was Catholic.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's seem a rather weak link – and WP:OR, if not directly supported by the sources. - Evad37 [talk] 05:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religion cut. (although it is hard to imagine an Irish Protestant working for Catholic Charities).--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the second paragraph of the lead, "she" is used three times in a row – suggest chaning one to O'Reilly~~
attended night school to get training as – get doesn't sound right in this context, suggest "to train as"
numismatics – link on first use (numismatic author Roger Burdette) rather then second (letters to numismatists)
''.., but numismatic author Roger Burdette, in his account of pioneering female Mint officials, does not mention this. – suggest rewording to ".., but numismatic author Roger Burdette does not mention this in his account of pioneering female Mint officials." to avoid having so many commas in that sentence
She was called upon to testify frequently before Congress. might read better as "She was frequently called upon to testify before Congress."
~~What does 1931-S mean?~~
her frequent role as Acting Mint Director – positions should be lower-case when used generically, per MOS:JOBTITLES

This is one where that is difficult. I conform to the literature in capitalizing Mint, when referred to as a bureau. It's kind of difficult to go lower case surrounding that. Open to suggestions.

Capitalising Mint is fine (proper noun), but even so, the positions are common names per the MOS – with the French president given as an example, so similarly we should perhaps have "Mint director" instead of "Mint Director" (when not followed by a person's name to form a title, or to refer to a specific director as a substitute for their name).

As for the acting position, if "acting Mint director" doesn't suit, there are alternative wordings – "acting director of the Mint", as in the lead, or perhaps just "acting director", if there'e enough context in the rest of the sentence.

Perhaps Ian Rose might like to comment, given that he mentioned the issue above. - Evad37 [talk] 09:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've massaged it a bit. How is it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks fine now - Evad37 [talk] 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late responding to ping, looks like we're all good anyway... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FDR's – per WP:MOS#Abbreviations, 'write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence'
no facilities to accept anything other than gold bars with a government stamp. – should "anything" be "any gold"? This currently implies that the Fed dealt exclusively in gold.
Hoover administration – link?
~~Note b. should probably have a reference~~

Looking good otherwise - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the one noted above, I think that's everything. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues struck, ~~see reply and remaining comments above~~ - Evad37 [talk] 05:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Evad37 [talk] 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

A few prose quibbles:

Lead

"She was known as the "sweetheart of the Treasury". Was she widely known as this, or was this just the NYT's description of her?

The Times said that is how she was known.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career

Perhaps be a bit less oblique concerning the fate of the liquor business. Was it closed down after Austin O'Reilly's conviction – and what precisely was he convicted of?

Rise to prominence

"According to Teva J. Scheer, biographer of Nellie Tayloe Ross, O'Reilly's final Mint Director before retirement..." – I found the weight of three introductory clauses a little stifling. Could this intro be rendered a little more fluently?

I've put the last clause into parentheses. Hard to do much else.

Assistant director

"Von Engelken during his six-month term as director in 1916 and 1917 left almost all supervision of the mints and assay offices to O'Reilly." What happened to Chafflin?

He died on a westbound train in around 1935. Oh, you mean then. Chafflin was an accountant, basically. There always had to be an acting director in Washington and (in Philadelphia) superintendent, and Chafflin filled in repeatedly. O'Reilly was much more involved in day-to-day administration.

"The new director had little interest in Mint operations, and O'Reilly not only supervised the bureau's operations..." Close repetition of "operations"
"effective in 1924" → "effective from 1924", surely?
"traumatized", which suggests a state of shock, seems a little strong to describe the country's postwar mood in 1921.

Changed, though the language is a borrow from Peace dollar.

Roosevelt administration and retirement

"This left O'Reilly as acting director". Not really; you've just referred to the "usual division of labour" that left Assistant Director O'Reilly in day-to-day charge. Unless you're now saying that O'Reilly assumed a policy-making role at this time?

There always had to be an acting director in Washington if the director was yet to be appointed, traveling, or, I imagine, home sick with the flu. I'll make it clearer. That does not mean she made policy, outside the clear emergency like the Peace dollar.

Retirement and death

"Never having married, O'Reilly died on December 6, 1949..." Slightly awkward, sounds as though her unmarried state caused her death. You could flip the sentence: "O'Reilly died on December 6, 1949 in Washington, never having married."

Other than these points, a neat complete job. A sources review is on the way. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

Ref 1 subscription required
Ref 3: is there a page refce for this source?
Ref 16: subscription required

Apart from these matters, sources are of appropriate quality and are correctly and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both reviews and your comments and kind words. I think I've caught everything now.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for something further on this nomination? It seems to have the conventional number of supports and things checked.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gerda edit

I met the article in DYK review and appreciate its clear layout, with attention to detail in image placement and concise TOC, also the irony of "with many of the directors under whom she served having little knowledge of or interest in the bureau's operations". Minor points, in no way in the way of this being FA quality:

I wonder if her possible move to New Orleans might be mentioned before her Mint career.
I could imagine the quote "it must have required an almost unprecedented combination of drive and intelligence for [O'Reilly] to have climbed so far up through the organization in her male-dominated work environment" in the lead.

I enjoy the irony of the last statement also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and kind words. I'm not sure about the lede containing the quote, but I've made the focus on her advancement, rather than the male ranks, in the lede. The whole quote I think, would be difficult to include. I should add that the Mint was always in the forefront of women in the workforce; our Franklin Peale article reveals it was the first to employ women for wages for jobs with defined duties, and Margaret Kelly rose very high as well. So without doubt she was very talented indeed, but what she did was not unique. In fact, since Nellie Ross, most Mint Directors have been women. So she was at a place where her talents would be recognized, not resented and suppressed.

As for New Orleans, I think there is so much doubt that she moved there (it is only mentioned in The New York Times that I don't see the point of moving it earlier when I do not feel it's very likely. It would be unusual for a Northern woman to move to a Southern city at that time, unless there are facts we don't know like friends there. The only reasons I mention it at all is a) The NYT should be taken seriously and b) The New Orleans Mint remained open until 1909.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thoughtful explanations. I would consider to move the move to sooner, because (!) it's unlikely. A reader skipping the first para and going directly to her career doesn't need to be held up by that questionable thing which - if it happened - happened before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.