# Talk:Hazel R. O'Leary

I don't see any reason why she should be called "the Honorable."  Judges are called "the Honorable."  Was she ever a judge?  GhostofSuperslum 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Honourable explained that just about anyone inside of the federal government may be called "the Honorable."  Even unimportant people such as Hazel R. O'Leary may be called "the Honorable" in the United States.  I may change my UserName in Wikipedia now; to theHonorable.  GhostofSuperslum 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that, certainly, after exiting as an employee of the federal government, "the Honorable" Hazel R. O'Leary lost her entitlement to be called "the Honorable."  The descriptive probably applies to people who are currently federal employees, not to has-beens.  Would someone please clarify the conditions?  Thank you in advance.  theHonorable (perhaps?) GhostofSuperslum 13:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, she is called "the Honorable" at Fisk University, not at this page.  theHonorable excellency GhostofSuperslum 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed a statement that implied Ms. O'Leary was involved with the theft of nuclear secrets.  I don't think backhanded insults like that belong.
A few other weasel wordings bother me.  For instance,

During her term as Secretary of Energy, she was often accused of travelling too frequently and spending lavishly on her accommodations. She apologized to Congressional committees in 1996 for spending which exceeded limits on the funds appropriated for travel and resigned in January 1997.
These seem fine (but would be better off if they were sourced).  On the other hand,

Some also made the accusation that these trips, which according to a GAO report sometimes paid expenses for businessmen, were used to pay back Democratic Party contributors.
is another jibe.  "Some also made the accusation ... ."  Who?  Cite a source for an inflammatory statement like that.
And who "later revealed that ... Johnny Chung claimed ..."?  Please, please, cite a source and copy a quote.  "It was later revealed that ... the donations were "extraordinarily suspicious"."  This is another statement that begs for a source.
Lunch 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I question this statement in light of recent news that Fisk is fighting for the right to dispose of a valuable art collection in order to raise funds.  http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100910/NEWS03/100910024/AG-unveils-plan-to-keep-Fisk-art-in-Nashville?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:b6289548-afd5-4a64-adf2-5f5c3a9aef93  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.241.73 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 
Added 2007 Washington Post article on Fisk's endowment to provide citation needed. CatonMA2 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Added EO 12891 citation CatonMA2 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hazel R. O'Leary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523043513/http://www.meacfans.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic%3Bf%3D44%3Bt%3D000018%3Bp%3D1 to http://www.meacfans.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic%3Bf%3D44%3Bt%3D000018%3Bp%3D1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hazel R. O'Leary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 15:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


### Criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Review
#### Lead
A sentence each covering what she did at Fiske and controversy as Energy Secretary probably belong as part of MOS:LEADREL.
Expanded. Knope7 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


#### Early life and education
Merely a suggestion but sourcing exists that O'Leary had a "privileged" childhood which seems worthy of inclusion.


#### Career
At what level of government was O'Leary an "assistant attorney general" (the particular page cited doesn't show for me on Google Books)?
It was a state position, I have tried to clarify. Knope7 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Need a source in the same sentence as the Press Secretary (who should probably be named and wikilinked in addition to the title) quote about the "unacceptable" project.
I added the name and unhid the source. I generally hide consecutive sources to avoid overkill.Knope7 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
There should either be a 2011 comparison of the Fiske numbers form 2008 or the numbers should be removed in 2008.
Finding old numbers for Fisk is challenging. I think given how much attention she received for the sale of art work, it is important to try and show other aspects of her tenure. My preference is to leave it the numbers to 2008, which provide a sense of the size of the institution she oversaw, and to leave the statement that enrollment improved. Both are sourced. I am open to hearing more about your thoughts. Knope7 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


#### Personal Life
No sourcing for her second husband
Consecutive sources are hidden. It's sourced to Linda M. Harrington. Knope7 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
This section repeats information found elsewhere and is perhaps unnecessary. Alternatively the information found elsewhere should be removed so it's only in this section.
Her first husband is mentioned in the article because he affected her career. The third is mentioned because it explains her name and he also played a role in her career. I don't think it's unusual to mention spouses and children elsewhere if they are relevant and still recap in personal life. Knope7 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
If this section is kept might flow better next to Early life and education
Generally, Personal life sections are at the end because they are considered less important to the article than Career. Knope7 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Why is her joining a Presbyterian Church worth inclusion?
There was an article about it and I think it just gives a little sense about what she does outside of her career. Knope7 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


#### Images
While the infobox is her official DOE portrait, I would suggest that the image which has the caption that starts "O'Leary speaks on September..." is higher quality and more recent and would deserve the better placement on the page.


### Discussion
Can Knope7 or other article editor please confirm interest in going through the GA review process? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am still interested. Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Knope7: Apologies. I did not watchlist this page and so I hadn't seen your confirmation. I have done an initial read of the article and will begin my detailed read soon (probably tomorrow). Thanks for your patience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Knope7: See comments and thoughts above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Knope7 went on an unexpected Wikibreak for a couple weeks and forgot to circle back to this when I returned. It looks ready to pass. Congratulations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)