Talk:Caroline Hodgson/GA1

GA review

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 03:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 23:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another fascinating-looking Australian biography! I look forward to the review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After going through everything, I think both of my questions about prose clarity are, really, optional; the overall article is clear and well-organized, and all the other criteria are clearly met. Rather than bounce this back and forth, therefore, I think it's ready to pass as a GA now, and let any further improvements be a matter of normal editing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments

Notes

For the source check, I looked at cites 29, 41, 42, 49, 63, and 69 as numbered in this diff. Everything verifies without copyvio or close paraphrase. I also appreciate several points where you've pulled Minchinton's more narrative approach into more of a chronological order! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a pass through the prose as well; two comments below but by and large very well written, as usual. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a lovely lot of images! A rare delight for a historical subject like this one. All with appropriate PD tag, save the modern one which has a suitable CC license. The dance card might be a little more relevant over with the discussion of her properties (especially Studholme Villa) but that would lead to some crowding/sandwiching so the current spot works well enough as an alternative. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions / questions

I was rather bold trying out a different organization in the "Expansion of brothels" section. I felt like the chronology was jumping around a bit and wanted to put events more firmly in order, though I'm undecided about whether it's an improvement. The main thing that was throwing me off was the 1888 adoption being mixed in with rather earlier events, but that's still the case, as it's a hard detail to smoothly tie in with other information... I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at this section specifically with chronology in mind and see what you prefer. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the bit about the second trial, After her acquittal -- this is a bit disorienting given that the acquittal was overturned (right?). Could it be "After the conclusion of the case"? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.