This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Geology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Massachusetts High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance). Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harmonie.mandono.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 11 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarekBoire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the ORES revscore is "GA": 0.326 [1] with infobox; and "GA": 0.157 [2] without infobox.

it may not be a drive by: it may be a cram down. but i leave that to women in green, to fix your ownership problem. Beatley (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English, do you speak it? Because what you posted above is completely unintelligible. As for "ownership": please. One person reverting you once is hardly that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the m:Objective_Revision_Evaluation_Service indicates that the infobox adds to the quality of this article. if you have questions about the algorithm, ask there. Beatley (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beatley, I don't know whether you are unable to grasp English or you are a troll, but whatever it is, you need to engage with other editors rather than edit war. You are now on 2rr and if there's another, you will be reported. Cassianto^Talk 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i know you are a troll. anyone can see who is engaging here and who is edit warring. but by all means elevate your concerns. if you dare. Beatley (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stay civil, avoid personal attacks, and stop trying to change the subject. Also, why should I believe that the numbers from a service on some other wiki that calls itself "objective" are actually useful for evaluating changes here? For all I know that site could have been set up by one of the pro-infobox warriors as a way of making infoboxes look good. Or it could just be noticing that the change adds to the character count of the article and thinks that means it's better. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David, for your common sense. The article is not even close to GA and, as I'm sure anyone reading through it will quickly realise, there is still a lot more information to be added. I believe one of my previous edit summaries actually indicated some of the areas I felt still needed to be included. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of reference for Beatley about ORES scores, they should be taken with some salt and an understanding that automated measures of quality are of limited use and should never be used to substitute discussion; I mean my userpage is clearly FA quality[3] for anybody wanting to do a review of it. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is all very amusing, and if you want to own this article, and take it to GA whenever you are pleased to do so, that is great. Reductio ad absurdum does not disprove the point. Beatley (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-iterate, in short; the argument was absurd to begin with - I was trying to demonstrate its absurdity with an example. ORES is not to be used to determine the quality of the article. It is most often used for anti-vandalism purposes and even there it is to be used only to check the edit, not to act immediately based upon the score. Automated measures are not ever to be used as a substitute for human discussion. It's a machine measurement that estimates quality based on what is present and what has changed. A larger article will most often be GA-FA quality according to ORES because it looks big enough to fit. The currently FA 2005 Azores subtropical storm is only a GA article by ORES measures [4]. Why? because it is short. Furthermore, I have never edited this article and I do not claim any ownership over it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Beatley already knows about this, but for the other participants here: See Talk:Marion Parris Smith for why ORES is useless or counterproductive for this task of determining whether an infobox is actually a helpful addition. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the note about this article over at Women in Green and decided to give it a look. I think some really nice work has been done on this article. I think the biggest improvement that could be made is with the comprehensiveness of body of the article. I noticed the lead includes some facts not in the body of the article, including the deaths of her sons and the establishment of a trust. Also, her later years don't appear to be covered in the body, as she died in 1954 and the last year I see in the body is 1937. Her death and legacy might warrant a section too. Knope7 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See previous comment above. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]