Talk:Diem Saunders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Diem Saunders/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 02:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Bridget, I'll be taking this GAN on. I've done a quick read-through and the content and sources look good, so I imagine this will mostly be a review for readability. I'll try to have a complete review for you in the next few days. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions in the meantime!

grungaloo (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grungaloo, thank you for taking this review up! Really appreciate your time. Bridget (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Bridget - I've finished my initial review. Overall I think it's a strong article. Issues are mostly style/prose related, with one or two citations that might need clarifying or fixing. My suggestions are below - let me know if you disagree with any of them or if you have any questions about what I've written! grungaloo (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grungaloo, thank you so much! I think I've addressed most of your concerns but I also have some questions. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bridget, thanks for making the corrections and clarifications! I think you've done an excellent job on this article and given a really good treatment of the subject. All the GAN criteria have been met and I'm happy to be able to promote this article. Congratulations, and thanks again for all your work! grungaloo (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status - Passed

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

These are just my suggestions so don't feel as thought you need to listen to them!

General comments

  • checkYUse of MMIW vs MMIWG - both are used throughout the article, suggest picking one for consistency. The WP article uses MMIW, but I think MMIWG is common enough in Canadian press that it could reasonably be used.
  • checkYRepeated Wikilinks - MMIW is wikilinked a few times, Amnesty International too.
  • checkYRepeated citations - There's a few passages where the same citation is used in consecutive sentences, like "Early life", [fn 2] is cited several times in a row. Those only need to be cited at the end of the relevant passage rather than for each line.

Lead

  • checkY"and activist in the Canadian province" - "from the Canadian province"
  • checkY"Canadian province of Newfound and Labrador" - Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
  • checkYSuggest dropping wikilink to "Canadian province" since the province itself it wikilinked.
  • checkY"who was an advocate for..." - "who advocated for..." They're already established as an activist so no need to restate they're an advocate, just who they advocate for.
  • checkY"public concern into the epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in the country" - Change "the country" to Canada.
  • checkY"The family testified at hearings for the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women three years later." - Add the specific year (2017?).
  • checkY"concerns of the environmental impact of a planned hydroelectric power project in Labrador's Muskrat Falls" - concerns about the environmental impactsof a planned hydroelectric power project at Labrador's Muskrat Falls.
  • checkY"between the provincial government and leaders in Labrador's Indigenous community and the establishment of an expert advisory committee" - Suggest rewriting to indicate the advisory committee was an outcome of the deal. Sounds like the agreement was reached between the province, Indigenous groups, and the advisory committee.
  • checkY"Saunders accepted..." - "Saunders was awarded..."
  • Suggest adding that they passed from liver failure to round out the lead.
    • I couldn't find liver failure in news coverage of their death. Is there anything else that you think I should add? Bridget (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was wrong here, originally I thought their death was more closely related to their activism regarding transplant. I reread the sources and it's like you say it's not specified what they died from. I think the lead is good without mentioning their death. grungaloo (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Activism

2014-2015

  • checkY"After the family lost touch with Loretta..." - Specify the "Saunders" family for clarity, might need to reword since Diem is mentioned in the same sentence. Consider "After losing touch with Loretta on Valentine's day, Saunders led..."
  • checkY"found on the Trans-Canada Highway in Moncton" - the source says she was found in Salisbury, New Brunswick.
  • checkY"had provided support to them at the time Loretta's trial had started" - a bit unclear what's being said. Emotional support, financial support?
  • checkY"helped organize Atlantic Canada screenings" - "screenings in Atlantic Canada"
  • checkY"who were murdered or disappeared" - "who were murdered or who disappeared"
  • "British Colombia Highway 16 known as the Highway of Tears" - comma needed between "Highway 16" and "known"
  • checkY"the two really pushed to hold..." - Specify who "the two" are (them and Smiley?)

2016-2017

  • checkY"The hunger strikes ran for nearly two weeks" - "The hunger strike", not pluralized.
  • checkY"Until a deal made by Newfoundland and Labrador premier..." - Suggest splitting this sentence. It's not clear that the establishment of the advisory committee was the outcome of the deal.
    • I wasn't trying to say intentionally, but I guess now I can see that the source implies that it was an outcome. I've changed it and modified the mention of the event in the lead. Bridget (talk)
  • checkY"Nunatsiavut, in Labrador" - your call, but I don't think you need "in Labrador" since that's been said earlier in the article. Could go either way though.
  • checkY"Speaking with APTN News" - can drop this since APTN is the source for the satement.
  • checkY"Saunders praised the decision by the government" - This sentence could probably be split for better flow. I would suggest splitting at "money originally designated for a proposal..."
  • checkY"that failed to be processed by the provincial government the previous month" - Unsure what this means. How does this affect the $10 million that was offered? Was it only available because of this failure? Also what does it mean "failed to be processed"? Could consider dropping this, I don't think it's necessary.
    • I've rewritten the sentence considering the points above: Saunders praised the decision by the government of Nunatsiavut to decline $10 million offered by the provincial government and Nalcor Energy, the provincial energy corporation operating the Muskrat Falls reservoir, in 2019 as compensation for the provincial government's failure to have surrounding wetlands capped.
  • checkY"and American singer Alicia Keys for her social activism" - not sure this is needed as it's not really relevant to the article.
  • checkY"held in the Membertou First Nation, N.S., in October of that year." - Nova Scotia should be spelled out, N.S. might not be easily understandable to non-Canadians
  • checkY"including touching Saunders's leg" - change to Saunders' so it's consistent with previous uses of the possessive
  • " at the University of Western Ontario in November" - suggest specifying year
  • checkY"The subject of Saunders's first written piece" - change to Saunders'

2017-2021

Personal life

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.