Talk:Mary Jane Richardson Jones

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Mary Jane Richardson Jones/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 16:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I am not an expert on the topic, I am happy to review this against the criteria. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon, great! I should be around to make fixes and answer questions as needed. Thanks for reviewing this. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks in good shape. A bit short, but I suspect that is a reflection of a schortage of available sources. The first thing I'd like to ask about is the name of the article: Mary Jane Richardson Jones. This appears to be the full name. Is it also how she is most commonly referred to in the sources? Is the Jane part commonly used? And is the Richardson part used? There is some guidance on names here:

Edwininlondon, the sources are mixed. The NPS refers to her as Mary Jane Richardson Jones, as does the Encyclopedia of African-American Business. Several academic sources use her full name once, or refer to her as Mary Jane Richardson before her marriage, while mostly using Mary Richardson Jones. WTTW does the same thing.

Very few sources seem to use "Mary Jones", probably because of the risk of confusion due to the commonness of the two names. She clearly took her husbands name upon marriage, but whether she continued using "Jane Richardson" as two middle names is unclear. The number of sources referring to her as "Mary Richardson Jones" suggests to me that she used her maiden name as a middle name, but I can't find any source specifically stating that. In short, I'm not sure what the best approach is. What do you think? Ganesha811 (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the article name as is. I see there is already a redirect in place for Mary Richardson Jones, which is what I was going to suggest.

Sounds good. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of the Early life section should state when she was born.

• Fixed - edited accordingly.

• began in 1861, Jones began --> repetition of began

• Fixed - edited to remove repetition.

• provided direct aid to former slaves as well as providing --> repetition

• Fixed - edited to remove repetition.

• Jones became independently wealthy, and dedicated her fortune to political activism.[1][6][11] Her husband's estate was valued at over $70,000; he had been one of the city's wealthiest men. --> I think the dedication part is a bit out of place. We now go from how much wealth to how she spent it back to how much wealth

• Fixed - good call, edited accordingly

• Jones was considered the most prominent of the "old guard" --> not clear who does this considering and who is quoted here

• Fixed - traced the source back to a paper by Richard Junger - edited accordingly

• black elite for two decades." --> partial sentence so the full stop should come after the "

• Fixed - done

• at Graceland Cemetery --> may I suggest you add Chicago here? My first thought was "Elvis?"

• Fixed - edited accordingly

• The section header Activism in Chicago suggests that whatever she did in Later life was no longer activism in Chicago. This doesn't appear to be true. Any way to change the section headers?

• Fixed - excellent point, edited accordingly

• I assume there isn't much more to say because of lack of source material, am I right? Or is there more but you don't think it warrants mentioning? The suffragist bit is rather weak at the moment. Ideally some of her views and actions are added. I'll have a look around on Google Books as well. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Added material - While sources are sparse, there is some more stuff out there. I decided to cough up for the Wanda Hendrickson work and it has a bunch of good detail on her activism in this part of her life, which I've now added to the article. Will keep looking.

That sounds great. A few things I found you may consider to add:

• This source here [1] says the network was interracial. It also says her husband was the first black to be elected in Illinois.
• This source here [2] mentions 1841 as the year John Jones came to Alton, plus detail about marriage.
• And here there seems to be a whole chapter about the Joneses: [3]

• Thank you! I can't access any of these sources in their entirety online, but I agree they seem good. The last one in particular I would love to get my hands on - I've requested it via interlibrary loan, but the nearest copy is apparently about 100 miles away and it may take a couple weeks to get it to me. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you can get access to these. And maybe the Hendrickson has plenty to work with, so as I said, just for your consideration. In the meantime, I shall check references, image rights etc. To be continued. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for you, Edwininlondon - I've managed to track down a full copy of the Junger source, which is as great and in-depth as I could have hoped. There's a good amount of material from it I'd like to add to the article, but I know that expanding an article rapidly during the GA review might be iffy. Would you prefer I add the material now for you to review, or would you prefer I wait until you finish your review on the current version of the article, trusting that what I add will not make it worthy of Good Article relisting? Ganesha811 (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. I don't care that expanding an article rapidly during the GA review might be iffy, I actually quite like it seeing evolve for my own eyes. It is my hope you eventually put it up for Featured Article Candidate. So up to you, I'm happy either way. I think the only thing missing now for GA quality is a bit more content about the suffragist aspect, assuming source material does exist. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok! I've added the material to the article, along with two images. I really haven't found a great deal more on the suffragist aspect of her work, and accordingly I've de-emphasized it in the lead to refocus the lead on what's in the article. Looking forward to hearing what you think. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References:

• Book publishers need a location

• Fixed, should have one for all of them now.

• Lifting As They Climbed book needs a publisher

• Fixed, added.

• Garland Publishing, Inc. --> I don't think we need the Inc bit

• Fixed, removed.

• Guzman, Richard seems to be the editor, not the author. I suspect that p.3 is the foreword, so that Carolyn M. Rodgers is the author, right?

• Fixed - no, Rodgers wrote the introduction, which is lengthy but counted in Roman numerals. I believe Guzman wrote the material on page 3. I've removed her from the reference.

• the Junger ref needs a cite journal template

• Fixed - retemplated.

Image rights, alt text all fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments:

• The reference 1 in the lead is not needed. Only quoted material in the lead needs a reference.

• Fixed, removed.

• We don't need the final sentence in the lead "Jones died on December 26th, 1909."

• Fixed, removed.

• November 28th --> November 28, to be consistent with other date formats

• Fixed, modified.

• Mary Jones with her husband John shortly after their marriage --> It would be better to use the full name Mary Jane Richardson Jones

• Fixed, modified.

• Jones was not quick to become a suffragist, following the example of Mary Edmonia Lewis --> this is ambiguous: was the example someone who also was slow to become a suffragist?

• Fixed?, rephrased and expanded, see what you think.

• I think you have enough material in the body of the article to put suffragist back in the first sentence of the lead, and add a sentence about it as well.

• Fixed, added back.

Apart from these, all that is left for me to do is a few spot checks to see if the content is verified by the sources.Edwininlondon (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, looking forward to wrapping this up. Been a great review. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Edwininlondon - one other thing - if you have any better ideas for the section headings/organization, go ahead and implement them. I was having trouble coming up with decent headings that would organize the material well but not be awkward or overlong. Your input would be very welcome. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the headings are not ideal, but it is not so easy to suggest better ones. Maybe get some inspiration from other bios, particularly Featured Articles?

Spot check:

• the daughter of Elijah and Diza Richardson --> not mentioned in ref 2

• Fixed - switched the ref and rephrased. Should be good now.

• the Junger article is used quite a few times but the page range is way too big to be able to verify all the claims. There are a few others as well with too big a range (e.g. 2001 Christopher Reed). It's ok for GA but if you want to progress further and eventually get it to FA quality, then this needs to be fixed. There are probably a few ways to do this, but in case you don't know how, I use the {{sfn template. See for instance Nominative determinism.

• Not fixed for now - yes, this is a fair point, but to be honest I find re-organizing references like this to be a pain, it's not something I enjoy haha. So for now I'll leave them and if I ever decide to try to take this to FA status I'll have a go at it then. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a bit of a pain. I might have some time this weekend to do the basics. Better to do it now, before many more refs are added. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article now meets all the GA requirements. Great work. If you ever decide to develop it further and prepare for FA, please ping me to do a peer review. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon, thank you, I appreciate your thorough review. I will do that! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]