# Talk:Frances Spatz Leighton

The article says her birth name was Ornstein and she married "a staffer for Earle Clements" and a man surnamed Hoyt. Was this anonymous staffer named Leighton? Why is he nameless in the article? If not, why was she using the name "Leighton"? Was it a pseudonym? I did try to check the references but the two relevant ones seem to 

Require an account I don't have
Sit behind a paywall.
IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, presumably he was, but the sources don’t specify. Eddie891  Talk Work  01:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frances Spatz Leighton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 10:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Eddie891, I'll take up the review for this nomination and will present it shortly. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891, I've completed then review and am putting it on hold. There are a few issues that need to be resolved before it can be promoted. See the comments and assessment table below for specifics. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Tayi Arajakate, let me know what you think Eddie891  Talk Work  14:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891, I think it mostly meets the good article criteria but I've some reservations, I have left replies to your response in the comments. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate, thanks, one two responses Eddie891  Talk Work  15:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891, I'll promote the article as there's nothing major but do consider removing the redlinks or turning them to blue ones, and if possible replacing the FamilySearch site. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


#### Comments
Ref 1 and 3 uses FamilySearch, a genealogical site which appears to accept user contributions. The citations should be replaced or removed.
While hosted on a site that also accepts user contributions, the records being cited are government records that are not edited by users and we can confirm with secondary sources that they're what we want, s I think they are acceptible.
Alright but if there are secondary sources available for the same information, why not use them? Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I meant that we know enough information that we can definitely the primary source is about the right leighton, and only use the primary source for a minor detail. For example, based on secondary sources we know leighton was born September 1919 and married Kendall King Hoyt, the marriage certificate is used to specify her birth to September 4. Eddie891  Talk Work  15:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The full name in the lead, "Frances Spatz Ornstein Leighton" does not appear to be used by any of the sources. She is just referred to as Frances Spatz Leighton and Ornstein is her surname at birth. I couldn't find anything in the sources used where it says how she got "Saptz Leighton" so I would suggest using "born Frances Ornstein" in parenthesis as opposed to using "née".
Done I think
I meant using "born" instead of "née" but anyways its not a big deal. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
changed Eddie891  Talk Work  15:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Its a bit ambiguous if she is being referred to as a writer or ghostwriter. She is also referred to as a journalist, so I would suggest re-writing the first line to "... was an American author, ghostwriter and journalist" and dropping the "best known for" part.
Sure
"After publishing several successful books, she became a very popular ghostwriter." The "very" should be removed and the line does not directly correspond with the body of the article or the sources. I think something like "She became popular for ghostwriting several memoirs and accounts of Washington D. C. life" would be more accurate going by what's verifiable, it could also be presented as the second line of the article.
revised
Your revision looks even better. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Consider replacing "... was approached "daily" ..." with  "was being frequently approached".
done
There should be a comma after "Around the same time".
added
In "then-First Lady of the United States Jacqueline Kennedy", the "then" seems unnecessary as the person with the title is already mentioned by name so I would suggest replacing it with "the" and adding a comma between Jacqueline and States. The line could also be moved to come after the line "Leighton worked with Parks to write My Thirty Years Backstairs at the White House (1961) about her experiences working at the White House and as a child while her mother was."
sure
Are you sure the two redlinks in the article are notable and should have their own articles?
Removed the psychiatrist, kept metro sunday group because it is wanting of a redirect or article
I had missed one, there's also one about John Szostak, what do you think about this one? I can't find anything about him other than the book. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is the bibliography partial? The Los Angeles Times obituary itself mentions a number of books with a brief description of them which are not mentioned in the article at all.
Because there's no complete biography anywhere that I've been able to find, sources just say "over 30". The only particularly relevant book I'm aware of not including was the pat nixon cookbook which is because worldcat has no results for it
Ok but regarding the Pat Nixon Cookbook, I think it can still be included without an identifier. Also the memoir June Allyson is missing from the bibliography. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Added June Allyson, I disagree about Pat Nixon, if it doesn't even have an OCLC that means it's essentially not held in any libraries and doesn't really merit inclusion in a selected bibliography Eddie891  Talk Work  15:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
That's a good point, also in the same vein I think the section should be renamed to "Selected bibliography" instead of partial. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


#### Assessment
Comprehension: The comprehension is good. Pass

Verifiability: The article is mostly verifiable. Pass

Comprehensiveness: The article is adequate in its coverage. Pass

Neutrality: The article is neutral. Pass

Stability: The article is stable. Pass

Illustration: The article has good illustration. Pass