Talk:Roger A. Pryor

GA Review

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems. ✓ Pass Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The article is reasonably well written Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • I feel that the 'Lead could be expanded a little. Perhaps two more sentences summarizing his career. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is well referenced.', I assume good faith for all print sources cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources appear to be reliable

   c (OR):

   • I find no evidence of WP:OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is reasonably broad in its scope. His wife is mentioned at the end, when did he marry? Did he have children? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • The article is correctly focusssed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • adheres to WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • no evidence of edit warring or instability. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are tagged and copyright status check out at present. Please note that changes in Wikipedia licensing may change the status of these pictures, see Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain/Mistagged_images#Mistagged_public-domain_images. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • A caption for the photograph in the infobox would be good, perhaps when taken, his status at that time? Likewise for the later picture (looking at Lincoln) Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • A few minor points: Lead expansion, reconsider caption for photos, on hold for now. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was actually considering reviewing this, so I'll add some comments I don't see mentioned above.

• citations should all be either before or after punctuation; consistency, please
• What is The South?
• What is the "so-called conversion"? (If it's something he's somehow known for, why isn't it in the lead?)

(My guess is that this has to do with a change of attitude about war-related issues. You really need to write more about this. If possible, you should also characterize his legal work, especially if it deals with war-related issues.) -- Magic♪piano 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully concur with all of those points, thanks Magic. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead still needs expansion. Some information about his wife and family is needed. The points raised by Magic have not been addressed. I am failing this for now, please bring back when these points have ben addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Post-bellum period needs expansion

He became quite successful in New York after the war and more influential than in his earlier life through his judgeships. He seems to have mastered some of his volatile temperament This section needs expansion to explain more about what he was doing and how he worked with Butler; also how he navigated the Democratic Party in the North.Parkwells (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Expand content about Sarah's works

There were several prominent couples in which the wife achieved independent notability as a writer: for instance, Seth and Mary Eastman, and Henry Rowe Schoolcraft and his wife. Sara Pryor's works need to be described - was she a Southern apologist? Mary Eastman published a pro-slavery book/anti-Tom novel before the war, as did some other Southern women. How did Sara Pryor's memoirs compare to Mary Chesnut's Diary?Parkwells (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is an article about Sara Agnes Rice Pryor. Why isn't the now rather lengthy material on Sara in this article in the article on Sara instead? Shouldn't there be only a few sentences here about her with a reference to that article (e.g. a main article hatnote in the subsection and a see also reference; there is already a link, although there could be another in the subsection on her) for the main material? I did not scrutinize the additions word for word to compare them with the Sara article but the Sara material here is now lengthy enough to raise the question of where it is better placed. In my opinion, if this is repetitive material, it does not need to repeated here, in an article about her husband. If it is not repetitive, I think it is still better placed in Sara's own article with a few sentences here that might lead a reader to that article and, as noted, perhaps a referral or additional referrals here (hatnote, see also, link) to Sara's article. Donner60 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right. I had expanded content with research on her here, then realized it was enough for a separate article, so set that up. Need to cut this back; reduced it somewhat but need to do more. Thanks for your comments. Parkwells (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I think I set up a false dichotomy. Your handling of the edits works in either case. I understand about adding and subtracting material. I do it myself. I am working on an article that needs to be reduced, and may find one or a few more articles that I have worked on in need of the same treatment when I eventually look back at them. Donner60 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Good additions from Sutherland. I found Pryor interesting but have gotten on to some other topics so am glad you're adding. Parkwells (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going on to other articles as well. Pryor seems to have good enough coverage for now. I might look back at this in the future. I recall something about him treating prisoners well. I think that is what caused some people to intercede for him and get him paroled before the end of the war. That might be worth adding if I go back and can find the source. Donner60 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roger A. Pryor/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have assessed this article as Start-class and identified the following areas for improvement: The article is not comprehensive and needs expansion Try to expand lead per WP:LEAD plange 05:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 04:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"did not personally own slaves"

Could the editors add "but rented them," as described by Sara Agnes Rice Pryor? https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/pryor/pryor.html ~ Peter S. Scholtes