# Talk:Alzada Comstock

For the benefit of editors in 2036, when this 1941 photo will be public domain, a great image of Comstock is in this clipping... though not much useful info in the article proper. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it was first published in 1940, so we only have to wait to 2035... I also found this one from 1945, and this one from 1960! Aha, and here is one from 1935, which will be public domain in just five years! She seems to have given a lot of public talks... ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alzada Comstock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 05:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pragmatic Puffin (talk · contribs) 15:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear LEvalyn and ,
thank you for your contributions to this article. I belief with some minor adjustments, this article can be well argued to be of GA class. I will structure my review along the six GA criteria:
- 1. Style & layout: Generally well written and accoridng to style. Titles in publication list should be extended (some are even indicated in text) or supplemented with teh publisher (Taxation in the modern state). Academic influences (i.e. advisor) and her notable (doctoral) students should be listed as part of the box.
- 2. Verifiability: All links lead to valid sources. Citations are made inline. Copyright violations seem unlikely based on scans.
- 3. Coverage: I think it would be good to extend the topics of personal life and combine them into an independent section (currently distributed throughout the career section) and if possible, add some statements about political views (e.g. communism, voting rights, economic inequality, prohibition, etc.). Also, if available, the identity of her academic advisor or other influences at Columbia would be good.
- 4. Neurality: No strong political or otherwise value-based point of view taken.
- 5. Stability: Stable as seen from edit history.
- 6. Illustration: Two pictures seem sufficient. Additional suggestion may be the title page of her PhD dissertation.

Thank you for your comments! I've started making some changes (moved existing personal life info to its own section, added doctoral advisor) and will continue researching the others (notable students, political views). I was able to extend the publication information for Taxation in the modern state but her first book, State Taxation of Personal Incomes, does not list a publisher anywhere so I've left it with just the title and the year. Just wanted to mention that as I am working; I will let you know when I have addressed the rest of your comments. Thanks again! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
After quite a lot of digging, I have determined that Comstock intentionally, carefully avoided ever expressing political views. She gave a lot of speeches and wrote a lot of columns, but she makes no comments on women's rights, communism, or even economic equality. She doesn't like when people starve to death, she likes the Marshall Plan, I think she likes the United Nations, and I think she likes slightly-higher income taxes rather than taxes on goods and services... but everything I could glean without excessive OR seemed to fit better in "career" than in "personal life."
As for notable students, I looked through the contributors credited for the festscrift, and the only one I could identify confidently was Ella Grasso, who is now in the infobox.
I think this addresses all of your comments! I made a number of other changes as I found more information through this process, so just let me know if you have any new concerns about the new material. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks for your adjustments. Personally, I do think one could collect the political views into a section, but I agree that her statements are mostly policy-content related and do not necessarily constitute a full section without significant OR.
Anyway with that done, I decided to pass the GA review. Good work and congratulations!! Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! If you see a good way to pull the political views together, please feel free to do so. I don't write biography articles very often so I am less expert at putting together biographical information like that, and even a good article can always be improved. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Pragmatic Puffin, this is a bit awkward after the review has formally concluded, but -- did you do a spot-check of sources when checking verifiability? You don't mention it in the review, but the GA review instructions now require a spot-check. Better late than never? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That is a very good point. Thank you for reminding me. In fact I did perform a spot check of about 10 sources, where I was able to access them. But even the rest, I was at least able to check the topical fit of the link (aka that it actually refers to some period of her life), even if i didnt check the exactly cited content. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh I’m glad, thank you! Glad that turned up no issues, and thanks for clarifying. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)