Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Coolidge/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Grace Coolidge

Grace Coolidge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 19 April 2025, 02:02 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Coolidge was first lady of the United States during the Roaring Twenties, but she spent her entire life working with deaf children. She was incredibly personable and beloved by the public. She was not allowed to dance in public, bob her hair, ride a horse, or fly in an airplane. Most importantly, she had a pet raccoon.

This is the fifth U.S. first lady article I'm submitting as a featured article candidate, a project which I began for

WP:Women in Green. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Image review

  • File:Grace_Coolidge_1924.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Mrs._Calvin_Coolidge_LCCN2014710795_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Coolidge,_4-18-27_LCCN2016842988_(cropped).jpg, File:Pres._%26_Mrs._Coolidge_acknowledge_greetings_from_crowd,_(11-5-24)_LOC_npcc.12517_(cropped).jpg, File:The_Coolidges_start_to_move-Mrs._Coolidge_snaped_(sic)_at_the_"Temporary_White_House"_when_she_appeared_carrying_a_few_of_her_choice_possessions_LCCN2002719325_(cropped).jpg, File:Grace_Coolidge_Official_portrait.jpg
  • File:Grace_Cooldige_Signature.svg: traced from what?
I don't know where those were published or how that could be ascertained. But with the exception of File:Grace_Coolidge_1924.jpg, they already have the appropriate "no known restrictions" or public domain tags. I've added the missing one for that image. Regarding the signature, you'll have to ask User:Connormah and trust that they remember the source they used 16 years ago. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MSincccc

  • Placeholder. MSincccc (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Early life
    Education
    Entering political life
    • Grace and Calvin moved into a suite on the top floor of the Willard Hotel. Could "she" be used here in place of "Grace" since the latter has been mentioned in the very previous sentence?
      • Done.
    Renovation and vacation
    • While changes to the design of architect Charles Follen McKim... Could "the architect" be used here to avoid a false title?
      • Not recommended by the Manual of Style.
    Later life and death
    • They also had a new house constructed by Calvin's childhood home where they could spend their summers. Could "by" be replaced with "near" to make the sentence grammatically correct?
      • You mean the childhood home didn't pick up a hammer and construct a new house? Done.
    • She took her husband's place as trustee of Mercersburg Academy, Clarke School, and another local school. Could Mercersburg Academy be linked here?
      • Already linked higher up in the article, unless there's a reason why it might be linked here as well.
    Legacy
    • Her biographer Ishbel Ross... Could Ross be linked here rather than later in the same section, as it has been done presently?
      • Done.
    MSincccc (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied to everything above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all from me. Support. MSincccc (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments   from Noleander

  • Throughout the article she is refered to by her first name, "Grace". That gives the impression that WP is condescending and misogynistic. It is hard to imagine this article on Coolidge appearing on the Main Page of WP, and referring to a grown woman by her first name. Other first lady articles Frances Cleveland, Helen Herron Taft, Barbara Bush, Rosalynn Carter, Eleanor Roosevelt, all use the last name to refer to first lady. One that uses first name is Florence Harding (and Edith Wilson to some extent). Granted, Grace Coolidge was, perhaps, less impactful on American history than other first ladies? Not as much gravitas or public power? But using the first name is subtly telling readers: "Since this first lady did not have as much public impact as other first ladies, we are going to demean her by using her first name in this article." Looking outside first ladies: Articles Oprah Winfrey & Shirley Temple use their last name, even tho they commonly referred to by her first name in sources. And Marie Curie article uses her last name, tho her husband is equally famous (that is, readers of the article know that the word "Curie" by itself refers to the subject of the article). Do sources about Coolidge use her first name exclusively? Even if the sources use the first name, that is not binding on the WP article, is it? E.g. when sources from 1900 use terms such as "colored" or negro", WP articles replace the source's terminology (when not inside a quote) with the modern (2025) conventions; shouldn't the same apply to first vs last name? Does WP MOS have a policy on first vs last name?
  • Bullet list? Since 1982, Siena College Research Institute has periodically conducted surveys asking historians to assess American first ladies, where Edith ranked:[218] 17th of 42 in 1982 19th of 37 in 1993 17th of 38 in 2003 17th of 38 in 2008 21st of 39 in 2014[219] 25th of 40 in 2020[220] I was under the impression that bullets were strongly discouraged by the WP MOS. It seems that this data could be presented without bullets, with no loss to the reader. If you feel a list is necessary, consider using a table, rather than bullets.
    • I'm not aware of any MOS discouraging bulleted lists when there's a list of info, but I went ahead and collapsed it into prose.
  • Ambiguity: While she was not aware that he made the announcement, she never said to others whether she was aware of his intention. I'm not sure what "she never said to others whether she was aware of his intention." means. Does it mean she did not tell her friends whether or not husband had notified her of his intention to not run? Or she did not tell her friends whether or not husband had given her advance notice of the public statement? Can you reword to clarify? Also: Why is it important whether or not she told "others" about it? And who are the "others". Maybe delete that phrase.
    • Rewrote.
  • Short sentence: While she was not aware that he made the announcement, she never said to others whether she was aware of his intention. She was glad to hear the news. Latter sentence seems a bit too terse; consider combining While she was not aware that he made the announcement, she was glad to hear the news. or something like that.
    • Done.
  • Wording: For her housekeeper, Grace fired Elizabeth Jaffray and replaced her with Ellen A. Riley. The phrase "For her housekeeper, Grace fired Elizabeth Jaffray and ... " doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I gather "for" here means "regarding", correct? Consider "Grace fired her housekeeper Elizabeth Jaffray and ...
    • Done.
  • Wording: Though she was personally unhappy with the effects of prohibition, her sense of legal obligation kept her from serving alcohol at the White House. Phrase "kept her from serving alcohol" is a bit idiomatic and may confuse some readers when English is not their first language. Consider Though she was personally unhappy with the effects of prohibition, she complied with the law and refrained from serving alcohol at the White House.. Also, can you add more specificity to "Though she was personally unhappy with the effects of prohibition" ? Does the source say why she was unhappy? Did it make social events more dull? or guests were annoyed?
    • Done and done.
  • Specify age: The Coolidges were devastated by the sudden death of their son Calvin Jr. on July 7, 1924. Providing the age of the son in this sentence will paint a fuller picture for readers. I realize that readers can compute the age by searching up in the article, but why make readers do the work?
    • Done.
  • Clarify wording: Years after leaving the White House, she determined that there was no point where she had genuinely embarrassed herself. It is not entirely clear what that means ... what is the source trying to say? Does it mean that she did do some unethical things, but they were never detected & published? Or does it mean she assessed her behavior, and concluded that she lived a virtuous life? In either case, reword to more clearly convey to readers what the source is saying.
    • Done.
  • Simplify: Then in the early 1880s, her father built them a new home ... consider removing the word "Then" ... in this context (reciting a portion of her life) the reader will assume that every event chronologically follows prior events.
    • Removed.
  • Wording Rather than teaching sign language, Grace followed the school's philosophy of instructing the students in lip reading... Kinda suggests that she made a deliberate choice. Consider shifting emphasis from teacher to the school: The school's policy was to teach lip reading, rather than sign language. or something like that.
    • Done.
  • Link? ...the school's steward Robert Weir, to introduce them.... Many readers will not know what job "steward" is. (I consider myself well read, but I don't know ... I presume it is similar to airline stewardess? But it could be related to car racing steward? or the Steward of Gondor?) Can you add a link to WP article that defines the job? Or, if no WP article exists, maybe replace "steward" with a synonym that will be more recognizable to readers.
    • I'm not sure what specifically it means either, but this was apparently his title.
  • Explain She often saved face for her husband and his unusual social behavior. What do the sources say was "unusual"? Can you use a word that gives more specifics to the user? E.g. "brusque" "aloof" "curt" "rude" ... etc (I'm not suggesting those are accurate for the husband, just giving examples of words that give more info to the reader).
    • "Curt" sounds right, added.
  • That's all for now. Noleander (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noleander I've responded to everything above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thebiguglyalien: The article is looking great! The prose is fine quality, and style looks good.

      Regarding the question of referring to her by her first name vs last (or first & last): Thanks for identifying the MOS guideline. The relevant part says "When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing." That is not a black-and-white rule, correct? It gives the editor some latitude: a judgement call is required.

      For the Grace Coolidge article, there are two choices: (a) Use first names for everyone (as the article stands today); or (b) Use last name for subject, first name for others. The "First names for everyone" approach is less confusing, but could be perceived as misogynistic (condescending, infantilization). The "Use last name for subject" approach is a more confusing, but treats the woman with respect. So a balancing test needs to be performed by the editor, weighing various factors, no?

      Question for nominator (I ask in the spirit of consensus-building): If the article were to use the "Use last name for subject" approach, would you feel that approach causes the article to fall below FA requirements? Noleander (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe it would meet the FA requirements either way. Personally, I think it would be a disservice to the readers to make their reading experience more difficult just because the subject of an article happens to have a significantly more famous spouse and happens to be a woman. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thebiguglyalien: (First, I apologize for failing to respond more quickly.) When I consider all the factors, I conclude the opposite: I find the balance is about 10x in favor of using the last name for the subject of the article. When I read the article, I find the first name offensive and misogynistic ... so much so, I cannot enjoy the article. What percentage of readers feel the same way? That would be a helpful data point.

      I cannot imagine any article on a man using his first name ... readers would find that very offensive and insulting.
      Prince Philip uses the first-name approach, but that is because he does not have a last name. The Denis Thatcher article uses his last name, and no one gets confused. Using the last name in Grace Coolidge
      is only minimally confusing: readers will quickly realize that "Coolidge" alone means the first lady.

      Part of my opposition goes beyond the Grace Coolidge article: the article may appear on the WP main page, and would be seen by over 1 million readers; what kind of impression would that give them? Also, it is setting a precedent for 40+ other first lady articles. (BTW: thank you for all the hard work you are putting into promoting many of them to FA status).

      You nominated another first lady article a year ago for GA: Talk:Helen_Herron_Taft/GA1#Overall, and in that nomination, this identical first-name vs last-name discussion occurred; and the consensus there was to use last name. It is bothersome that you are now reversing that decision.

      Above, you wrote: "I believe it would meet the FA requirements either way [but think first name is better]". One definition of consensus is "A decision everyone can live with, even if they don't necessarily like it." I cannot live with the first-name approach. But if you can live with the last-name approach, then would you consider using the last-name approach?

      Oppose because of the first-name approach; but I would support if the article were changed to use her last name. The prose is excellent! 14:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Noleander (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      consensus for anything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Thebiguglyalien Changed to Support based on new naming approach. I apologize for maligning your character in any way. That was not my intention. I was trying to say that I perceived the wording in the article as misogynistic. That says more about me than you. That is why I posed the rhetorical question: "I wonder how many WP readers feel the same way". The mamy biographical articles you have crafted about historical women are clearly coming from a place of respect, and I apologize for suggesting otherwise. Noleander (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
re "I'd like to point out that a reviewer making a decision at GAN is definitely not consensus for anything" - the consensus is established at
MOS:SAMESURNAME Mujinga (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Support from Jon698

Jon698 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon698, posted my replies above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

Hi Thebiguglyalien, thanks for bringing this article here and sorry to be a debby downer, but for me this use of first name issue is enough to oppose at the moment. I hope we can work it through, I see you have already discussed this above with

MOS:SAMESURNAME and I suggest this article should be re-written to use Coolidge in most cases, also using constructions like "she" for Grace and "her husband" for Calvin. Mujinga (talk
) 13:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC) edit Mujinga (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC) struck oppose Mujinga (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga - Thanks for reminding me about this, I forgot about this FA review. I have some additional thoughts on this topic, and I'll post them above in my review. Noleander (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The change has been made in one edit to fit
MOS:SAMESURNAME, but on reading the article I'm hitting numerous prose errors, some perhaps introduced by recent changes, so I'm afraid I will keep my oppose. I think it needs a copy edit, I could try to do that in the next few days Mujinga (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply
]

Doing a copy edit, see what you think, and making some notes as I read through:

  • "Inspired by a neighbor" - not really seeing that in the body?
  • "She took little interest in her academics.[14]" - what does this mean?
  • "Even when he was home, he had his wife address the needs of their children. She participated with them in traditionally masculine activities, teaching them baseball and constructing wooden cars for them to ride in" - not seeing "traditionally masculine activities" in the source, also it makes the point prob worth adding that this was when Coolidge started her lifelong passion for baseball
    • I remember one of the sources describing it as being something the father does rather than the mother, but I cannot find where I read it, so I've removed that part. I added the part about it being the origin of her interest in the sport.
  • Link prohibition to Prohibition in the United States?
    • Done.
  • "To limit anything potentially controversial, Coolidge's husband strictly controlled her activities." - I wonder if this is a fair summation? Schneider and Schneider say on p214 a few things that make it seem like Calvin Coolidge was a controlling patriarch, rather than concerned for his political image. For example he "made almost all decisions, great or small" and "his permission was required for her to visit her parents". They give a long list of things she couldn't do and then say "over and over he told jokes at her expense that a woman at the end of the 20th century would find humiliating, and another woman even of her time might have found boorish"
  • "Despite the Coolidge's adoration for the raccoon" can't access the source, do you mean Despite the Coolidges' adoration for the raccoon?
    • Yes, fixed.
  • " Coolidge made frequent appearances at the White House to see the construction" - oversee?
    • The source says: "she often stopped in to see how things were getting on, and climbed the wooden stairway at the east end of the building for observation". So it's not entirely clear what she was doing there other than looking.
  • "She became board president of Clarke School in 1935; she kept active here" - not sure what kept active here means?
    • The rest of the sentence says what her activity there was. I've removed "kept active here" to avoid confusion.
  • Journalists characterized her as "the college type of woman" - who is being quoted here?
    • The source says: "Journalists termed Grace 'the college type of woman,'". Ross page 62 also mentions it: "When she gave her first reception [as second lady] it was noted that she ... was the 'college type of woman.'"

Mujinga (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga I've replied to each point above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mujinga Additional replies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks for working through my concerns, I've struck my oppose now. I'd prob want to read through the article again in the light of recent changes before supporting, not sure if I'll get time for that. Good luck with it! Mujinga (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • There is no publisher "Oxford University Press, USA"; it should just be "Oxford University Press"
  • The three pdfs from the web should have access dates
  • The alpha order looks a little askew with the order of Ross...Schneider...Ranking...Siena
Coverage and reliability

To follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book sources used are high quality and reliable, so no problems there. I am a little concerned about the breadth of research though, going by the sources used. By way of books, I was a bit surprised that Paul F Boller's Presidential Wives (1988, OUP) and Nancy Hendricks's America's First Ladies (2015, ABC-CLIO) do not appear; is there a reason for that?

Is there also a reason why no journals were used in the article? A very quick search (and only of the WikiLibrary) shows a couple of potentially germane sources that are available, but absent in the article.

  • Off-the-Record: Grace Coolidge’s Emotional Role in Sustaining Calvin Coolidge. (2012). New England Journal of History, 68(2), 63–67.
  • Finneman, T., & Thomas, R. (2014). First Ladies in Permanent Conjuncture: Grace Coolidge and “Great” American Womanhood in the New York Times. Women’s Studies in Communication, 37(2), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2014.911232

A more thorough and wider search may throw up more than these two. Has that been done? - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat I've responded to the formatting comments. Regarding the listed sources:
  • "Off-the-Record" is by Carl Sferrazza Anthony, who is already included as a source from a book he wrote. As far as I can tell, "Off-the-Record" was a speech he gave in 2010.
  • Finneman & Thomas (2014) isn't biographical, it's a stand-alone study that uses contemporary articles about her to prove a separate thesis about media attention on women at the time. This was on my list of sources to use and I was disappointed when it turned out to be a tangentially-related study.
  • I've used Boller (1988) on a handful of articles in the past, but I never found it particularly helpful and the same information is usually conveyed better by other sources.
  • Hendricks (2015) is the outlier here in that I'm aware of it but never looked closely at it. As of yet, I have not needed it to complete a first lady FA.
I can look through any or all of these if you deem it necessary, but I was intentional in the sources I used and I think the ~7500 word article covers all of the relevant details and is closer to excessive detail than incomprehensive on the spectrum of coverage. Either way, thanks for the source review! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it probably is necessary. The FA criteria calls for "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and a book about the first ladies with a chapter on Coolidge would fall into that bracket. There's a copy on the IA, to save having to go to a library or buy one. Is there nothing that can be taken from any of the other sources that could be used? A encyclopaedic biography shouldn't just need to be a straight biography, but should also encompass relevant analysis, so Finneman & Thomas may be worth another look too, if not some of the others as well. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat I read the four sources you listed and added everything relevant that wasn't already there. Three of them mostly retread the same ground but had a few details each. I added several second citations for things that were already cited. Hendricks has some good stuff and I thank you for encouraging me to take another look at it. I'll definitely be using it in the future. If you want to see what I added from each source, I did each as its own edit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - glad they were of use and thanks for taking the time to go through them all. The source review is a pass. - SchroCat (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Grace_Coolidge/archive1&oldid=1285841768"