# Talk:Elisabeth Dieudonné Vincent

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elisabeth Dieudonné Vincent/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 16:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead needs some style work - more like a short version of the article than a true overview. Less 'storytelling' sentences would help. Also needs to establish notability (this seems to be 'there's a lot of records/study of her for a free black woman', which should be written out rather than inferred).
 Done SusunW (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Lead also much too long for the article length in general
Shortened and condensed  Done SusunW (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Image caption does not need 'prior to 1883'. She died in 1883, it is assumed the photo was took before she died (I know there were some post mortem portraits taken, but as the exception, that would be something noted).
 Done SusunW (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Besides the often-uncertain sourcing on Find A Grave, sources look suitable (should replace find a grave with something else)
The article uses nothing written by an editor at Find A Grave, merely a photograph which lists their names and dates on their tombstone and confirming their burial place. That the stone is actually in that particular cemetery is confirmed by the Nieuwsbrief Nr. 94 2016 article. If there were another record available, giving Joseph's death date, I would have used it, but at this time, have found nothing. SusunW (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Too many images, of which some are really irrelevant.
Removed 1 image, if you'd like other images removed, advise which ones. Thanks. SusunW (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Section headers are weak or flowery, or both. "Sojourn to the United States"? How about 'Immigration'. "French interlude" → Settlement in France. And "Belgium" could easily be 'Later life'.
I don't think the examples you gave, other than later life are accurate. She immigrated numerous times, and their stay in France proved to be temporary. I labeled them "in X" throughout. SusunW (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
A quick shows that there is a promotional tone. While contributions shouldn't be underplayed, phrasing like "Her history enriches our knowledge" are not neutral.
I've reworked the legacy section. If you have specific issues, please point me to specific problems. I am quite happy to make changes to improve the article, but am confused by vague instruction. SusunW (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Early life: Most of this is about her mother, which belongs in a different section (family, ancestry, or something similar). Separating out the details of Elisabeth's birth and life and putting them first would at least help structurally
I do not understand your direction. Elisabeth's birth information does come first, and then a discussion of her family origins. This is typical in biographies to set the context. I have relabeled the section to include "family" and moved the start of commentary on her mother to a new paragraph. If you are saying her entire biography needs to come first and then the information on her background, I would disagree--family isn't a separate part of a life it is an integral part. SusunW (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The article does need to be tightly focused on the subject - obviously family is relevant, but her mother shouldn't be treated as the primary subject, her coverage should be in relation to Elisabeth. It starts to read like it's the other way around here. I'll read it again to see if there's anything specific. Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, I did look at whether there was enough information to do a separate article on the mother and concluded not. I felt that if one were created, the result of an AfD discussion would be to merge the information into an article on her daughter or grandsons. Perhaps it wouldn't have, but those are my thoughts. SusunW (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
US: was a contentious landlady is a bit flowery. I've made some copyedits in this section to make it sound less narrative - if similar work could be done here, that would be great.
According to the source, she "could be both a patron and a pill, exerting her control" and was involved in several lawsuits with family and neighbors over money matters. Contentious, i.e. "exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes" (Merriam-Webster, online) seems to capture that. I have changed it to "They lived with Peillon, but the relationship was difficult because of her controlling and litigious nature", but if that is unsatisfactory, please make a suggestion and I'll be happy to consider it. SusunW (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
France:
Add the year again at the start of this section to make it a bit more standalone
 Done SusunW (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
coup d'etat doesn't need a wikilink or to be in italics, since it is also English (a borrowing, but still an English word)
 Done SusunW (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Belgium: The sentence One by one, the brothers went to the United States, where they created a successful international tobacco business, with Joseph in New Orleans; Pierre working along the Gulf Coast; Jules operating in Veracruz, Mexico; Ernest located in Antwerp; and eventually Edouard settling into the business in Mobile, Alabama. would probably be better as two (also, Mexico and Antwerp aren't in the US)
 Done SusunW (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Legacy: Statements like The story of Vincent and her family add layers not only to the history of statelessness and citizenship, but also to the depth of our knowledge of the impact of legal status and paperwork on people of color again need to be considered for neutrality but also need to be attributed inline to who is saying this. The whole last paragraph needs attention.
As stated above, reworked the entire section. Advise. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


### Overall
 On hold Comments above, some phrasing concerns, but mostly the lead and legacy need attention. Kingsif (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review Kingsif. I really do appreciate it. I've tried to answer your queries, but am a bit confused by some of them. Please don't worry about being critical, that is why we are here, to critique and improve the article. I'm perfectly happy to discuss and make any changes that do that. Please review the answers and let me know how to proceed. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both for the edits, I didn't think you'd need much more prompting or guidance, sorry if it felt I wasn't responding - I agree that Elisabeth's mother likely wouldn't manage an article of her own, and the little rearrangements have improved how that part reads. I also find the legacy sufficient, since there's now a few more concrete statements about how the recording of her life impacted areas of study. Looks good.  Kingsif (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't worried about your response time, Kingsif. In this virus situation, I figure we are all doing the best we can. Just a tiny query, will you update the unassessed items in the template so that someone else doesn't conclude that you did not review them? Truly am appreciative of your help in improving the article and thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)