Talk:Little Eva: The Flower of the South/GA1
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Review
- Made a couple small copyedits. Overall this article is in great shape. Only a couple other thoughts.
- How did you decide on 1853 and 1861 in the lead given that the body goes with "1852 or 1853" and "between 1855 and 1861 or in the 1850s". Essentially there are five citations for these two dates which is a fair number and no doubt reflective of the fact that there's genuine disagreement. Does it make sense to put those dates into context of who is saying what rather than having it in Wikipedia's voice?
- I chose to use the range because I thought it would cover all of the estimations made by the various scholars. I have replaced the part in the lead with something about how the exact publication date is unknown. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Think that works better in the lead. I defer to you on my question of whether the current phrasing in Wikipedia's voice explaining the various dates or attribution of where those years come from is better. Please confirm you wish to keep it this way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- You have a whole bunch of high quality academic writing and then you have Mental Floss. I'm not sure that it's reliable enough of a source, or that Conradt is authoritative enough on children's lit or Anti-Tom lit to make the assessment we're sourcing to them.
Discussion
Might be a day or two before I get to this but let's give it a whirl. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)