Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

This article used to be a very good article. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now.

VGA comments

Hello here are my comments as to VGA:

• Isn't the sentence She was the First Lady of the United States from January 20, 1961 until 22, 1963 as the wife of President John F. Kennedy. missing something?
• Kennedy Onassis is a double name; in French they spell it with a hypen (Kennedy-Onassis). Would a redirect from the less common to the more common spelling make sense?
  • @Eptalon:: I kept on referring to her as "Kennedy Onassis" because that is last name of the article title. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• She was raised in the Roman Catholic faith -> .. the the R.C. tradition, or as a R.C.?
• "She graduated with a bachleor's degree... ->likely economics or finance or something related. Can we mention the subject? - What if it was theology?
• The near-fatal spinal operation needs explaining, rephrasis or linking. (spinal, to spine for example)
• Depression links to a disambiguation page, wouldn't it make sense to directly link to the correct meaning (likely Depression (mood))?
• More of a question: Whats the use of a passive voice if we have an author? - On November 29, 1963, a week after her husband's assassination, Kennedy Onassis was interviewed in Hyannis Port by Theodore H. White of Life magazine. vs On Nov...H.P of L.M interviewed Kennedy Onassis? - Thats porbably pure stlye, and as a non-native speaker I can't tell you which is better (this was just picked as an example, there are a few places with similar patterns)
  • @Eptalon:: I think it works how it is. I'm not really sure what specifically you're asking: if Kennedy being interviewed is properly used in passive voice? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • There are two things: isn't it "better" (as in easier to understand) to use active voice, when we have all thars needed? - "On ...T.H.White interviewed Kennedy Onassis in ..."? - I am not a native speaker, so I don't know.--Eptalon (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      • • @Eptalon: Oh I see your point. I fixed it per your comments. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Kennedy Onassis spent 1964 in mourning and made few public appearances because some believed she was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. - is there really a causal link (didn't look at the references), or should these be two senences?
• AS you will porbably see I fixed a few minor issues I saw.
  • Thank you! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Overall I have to say in my opinion, the article is in a very good state. --Eptalon (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Eptalon: Issues have been fixed! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Simplicity/Readability scores

• The Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score is 53.6 - (70.0+ = Fairly easy to read; this was rated fairly difficult to read)
• The Flesch-Kincaid grade level is 10th grade
• The Gunning Fog index is 10.4
• The Coleman-Liau index is 10 - this is the grade level
• The SMOG index is 10.2 - SMOG stands for Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and gives a grade score
• The automated readability index is 9.3 (grade level: 13-15 year olds)
• Linsear Write Formula - 11.5 (Grade level: Twelfth grade)
• Readability consensus - Grade Level: 10; Reading Level: fairly difficult to read; Reader's Age: 14-15 yrs. old (Ninth to Tenth graders)

Disclaimer: due to word limitations, I only copied through the sub-section Assassination and Funeral of John F. Kennedy, but I have little reason to believe that the rest of the text is any different. I used this website. I removed the Wikipedia artifacts of the references, and I didn't include the lead nor the infobox. Readability tests aren't the end-all, be-all for simplicity, but they do give a good idea as to how easy the text is. This article is way too difficult. We should be aiming for at least a seventh or eight grade reading level; optimally a fifth or sixth grade reading level. This is too difficult for a VGA as it stands now.

The grammar and word choice are problematic. For example: "A week after the assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued an executive order that created the Warren Commission—led by Chief Justice Earl Warren—to investigate the assassination."

• issued is not a simple word, and it has multiple definitions. Wrote would be a better word.
• This sentence needs to be broken up into two sentences at least - possibly three.

Something like this would be better: "One week after the assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote an executive order. It created the Warren Commission. It was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. They wanted to investigate the assassination."

Just my thoughts. ~Junedude433^talk 20:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Junedude433: I've addressed the issues and simplified words and shorten sentences. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Junedude433:, I appreciate your feedback and I'd like to get the ball rolling for this VGA nom so I was wondering if there's anymore comments? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Some questions

I reviewed this article 7 months after it was promoted to VGA. I have some questions about the current content. 1. When discussing the Kennedy family as a group, should we call them "the Kennedys" or "the Kennedy's"? The first was changed into the second.

Here, the second is simply ungrammatical. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I see "Kennedys" at enwiki. You could also say "members of the Kennedy family". --Auntof6 (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Now it says "Kennedys" everywhere. I think it makes sense to keep it that way. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

2. Are titles such as "president" and "first lady" capitalized/uncapitalized appropriately throughout the article? I believe in some contexts (generic), they should be capitalized, while in other contexts (specific), they should not be.

Here, there is a distinction between an official position ("President") and his wife, not capitalised, and not "first lady", which is slangy. A spouse is technically a nobody as far as the constitution is concerned. I would mark the change in the article by saying something like "After her re-marriage she was known as..." Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A spouse may not be significant according to the constitution, but the FLOTUS (not that the acronym was used then) is and I believe always has been significant culturally. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization: The name of the office is capitalized when it is used as part of the name. Example: I saw President Kennedy in France. It is not capitalized when used without the name. Example: The president traveled to France. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Titles of people seems to suggest otherwise.

When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis).

That would mean if we're talking about JFK when we say "The president traveled to France", it would be capitalized. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

3. The subject's name has changed from "Jacqueline Bouvier" to "Jacqueline Kennedy" to "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". In some places, just "Jacqueline" is used, while in other places, one or more of the surnames with or without the given name is used. I think it is appropriate to use different names in different places, but someone can check to make sure the names used are all accurate. For example, in some places, "Jacqueline Onassis" is used, where previously it was "Kennedy Onassis". Are both acceptable in the later part of her life?

This question is best answered by using her own choice of name. It does have to be one of the two you mention above, not sundry variations (that defect is known as "elegant variations", and that is not a compliment). Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The guideline (or maybe policy, I'm not sure) is to refer to people by surname. (Not sure about cases where the surname changes during the person's life.) A person can be referred to by given name to distinguish them from other people with the same surname. Of course, in this case, during the time when JFK was president, she can be referred to as the first lady. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not completely sure if her surname was "Kennedy Onassis" or just Onassis. For example, my mother (and father) uses her maiden name as a middle name, but some people have two last names. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

4. "Two more shots had been fired, three of them hit her husband in the head." — Impossible! These are just suggestions for editors to review, whenever they get the time and are interested. Lights and freedom (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom I can shed some light on these for you, in the same order you presented:

1. Since the last name is a proper noun it would have an “s” added to it (if needed). If you are showing possession (I.e. The Kennedy’s dog was running). It would be “‘s” to show possession.
2. Per WP:MOS#Titles president is only capitalized when followed by the name example President Kennedy vs. The president of the U.S. was John Kennedy. First lady is not an official title so it should always be lower case and only first would be capitalized if it begins the sentence. I do not know of many sentences that start with First lady as it seems to always start off as The first lady joined President Kennedy on the trip.
3. This one can be tough. It will be based on the context where the name is used and what section. Before marrying him, while married, after his death, did she get remarried, etc.
4. This just needs to be clearly rewritten. There were a total of 3 shots fired and most say they third shot was the fatal one as it removed part of his skull and brains which were found after he was removed from the limousine at the hospital sitting behind him where he had sat.

Hope that helps you. I’m not really sure why an article such as this would really change either because nothing about this assassination has changed since the final investigation decades ago. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 03:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom Also I just thought about this. If none of the contributions added anything you could look at the version when it became a vga vs and go one by one through the edits and possibly even roll it back to the version that got the VGA attached. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 03:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@PotsdamLamb Thanks for your responses. I did go through all the edits since it was promoted. Rather than looking at one edit at a time, I viewed the history, set the page to display the 250 most recent revisions, then viewed the diff between the latest revision and the revision when it was promoted. Then I manually reverted each of the edits I thought was unhelpful, except for the things mentioned here which I was unsure about. I didn't want to roll back all these revisions, because there was some I found helpful. For example: when it was promoted, the intro mentioned some particular clothing that she wore. I found this to be unfit for the intro, and it was removed later. Also, there were many bot changes to the references which improved the article, and some general improvements to the style and content, after it was promoted. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lights and freedom No worries. Thanks. Da Lamb^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 04:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Some remaining issues for this articles:

1. In the section "Marriage to John F. Kennedy and children": the second sentence has wrong grammar: "The two had many things in common such as their Catholicism, writing, liked reading and lived abroad during college." In a list like this, you can take out the other items to see if the grammar is right.
   • "The two had many things in common such as their Catholicism ..." - good.
   • "The two had many things in common such as ... writing ..." - seems OK, but I'm not totally sure.
   • "The two had many things in common such as ... liked reading ..." - doesn't make sense, so wrong.
   • "The two had many things in common such as ... lived abroad during college" - doesn't make sense, so wrong.
2. In the section "Foreign trips", the third sentence has the same problem: "After arriving in the country, many liked her such as President of France Charles de Gaulle because she could speak French and her knowledge of French history."
   • "many liked her ... because she could speak French ..." - good.
   • "many liked her ... because ... her knowledge of French history" - seems wrong.
3. In the section "Death of Patrick Kennedy", the second paragraph is confusing. "The President was at Otis Air Force Base to recover after Patrick was born. Her husband went to Boston to be with Patrick and was there when he died." What is the president recovering from? The subject switches from "The President" to "her husband", and then but this doesn't make sense because there is no antecedent of the pronoun "her". In the next sentence, it switches back to the "The President". I know "her" is referring to Jackie, but these should be rephrased.
4. In the section "Assassination and funeral of John F. Kennedy", in the second paragraph: "Two more shots had been fired, three of them hit her husband in the head". As I said before, this is impossible.
5. "Assassination" seems like a complex would, but it is not defined or linked in the intro. Should it be?

Thanks. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. "The two had many things in common. They were both Catholic, they both wrote, both liked reading and both had lived abroad during college."
2. "After arriving in the country, many liked her. French President Charles de Gaulle liked her because she could speak French and because of her knowledge of French history."
3. This looks like a bad translation from enwiki, so: "Jacqueline was at Otis Air Force Base to recover after Patrick was born. Her husband went to Boston to be with Patrick and was there when Patrick died." It might be clearer if we add a sentence to say that Patrick had been sent to Boston Children's Hospital.
4. I think we could minimize the description of the number of shots here. That detail belongs in the article on the president and/or the article on his assassination. We could just say the president was shot at least twice, or something like that. I think there is actually dispute as to how many shots there were, but I think the president was hit twice.
5. Yes, it should be linked, unless it's already linked not too far before this.

A general comment: don't be afraid to divide sentences to make things simpler. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, some of those should be even simpler, to eliminate the complex sentences:

1. "The two had many things in common. They were both Catholic. They both wrote. Both liked reading, Both had lived abroad during college."

3. "Jacqueline was at Otis Air Force Base to recover after Patrick was born. Her husband went to Boston to be with Patrick. He was there when Patrick died."

The word "abroad" should also be replaced, but not with "overseas". Maybe "outside the United States"? -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

More issues

If you have a look at the article history, I annotated all of my changes. The article was full of errors in the quotes, paraphrases of quotes, and citations. Here is another: "The White House's East Garden was renamed the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden soon after her husband died." The cited reference does not mention this. There is no easy to re-use reference for the date on the main Garden article on EnWP. I suppose I should have posted all of my previous revisions to Talk, but frankly, do not have time for that. Just want to get this into reasonable shape. Lights and freedom has done an excellent job above. Thank you, Laf. --Gotanda (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

White House Endowment Trust and White House Acquisition Trust are now (red) linked. If they are significant to the article, then they need links. --Gotanda (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I sourced this with a page from White House Historical Association website. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --Gotanda (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Marriage to John F. Kennedy and Children

This section needs a complete re-write. It mentions one stillbirth (which is not clearly explained) and one daughter. Neither of the sons are identified. Ends on campaign work instead of the topic of marriage and children. --Gotanda (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition, there is a whole long section on the death of one child shortly after birth, but the living children are barely mentioned at all (and not in the correct section). Seems a bit of undue weight if not just morbid. --Gotanda (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Settlement

The article says, "After two years of legal problems, Jacqueline Onassis got $26 million from her step-daughter Christina Onassis," but if one reads the cited article, the value of the settlement was $20 million and the negotiations took 18 months. This is one more in a series of errors of sloppy quotations, incorrect summaries, or irrelevant citations. It makes me question the rest of the article when it goes into anything more detailed than the commonly known facts. --Gotanda (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gotanda: I looked into this. These facts were clearly copied directly from enwiki, with a source added later, so I looked at the enwiki history. In 2005, an editor wrote that she inherited $27M, with no source. In 2006, an editor changed this to $26M, with no source. In 2008, an editor added that the legal battle lasted two years, again with no source. In 2012, an editor referenced this statement to this book. I don't have access to the book, so I can't verify the information right now. Lights and freedom (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've updated the article to remove exact dates and figures and added citation needed. Without the book, I cannot cite it. This is the kind of check the nominator needs to do before putting it up for VGA, I think. This is not a very high priority article. I would rather be fixing up something else, but it's VGA now, so better clean it up. --Gotanda (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Not reliable abagond.wordpress.com

Latest change, I removed https://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/1040-fifth-avenue-where-jackie-o-lived/ as a ref. It's just a blog by a computer programmer. Not reliable and certainly not very good. In one case it was one of several refs, but in the other we now need a source.--Gotanda (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Miscarried or stillborn

In the lede and later, there is some confusion around miscarried, stillborn, and born.

Here: "Jacqueline miscarried a stillborn girl named Arabella Kennedy in 1956. " Which is it? Miscarried or stillborn? --Gotanda (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gotanda It seems to have been a conflation of two things. She had a miscarriage in 1955, then had a stillborn daughter, Arabella in August 1956. The first should not be mentioned in the lede, the second perhaps should. Patrick Kennedy should also be in the lede so I will fix this. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Butting in: a person cannot be named unless they are alive to be named (and even then it has to be registered). You may intend to give a particular name, but that has no legal bearing. "Was going to be called XYZ" is the right phrase if there is evidence to support it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Trip to Cambodia

The article states, "This was because of her trip with David Ormsby-Gore to Cambodia." But according to the linked ref the anme is Ormsby-Core and there were rumors of Kennedy Onassis and Ormsby-Core being romantically involved but no causal link between Ormsby-Core and her being a roving ambassador. The ambassador role comes from her own behavior. Delete? --Gotanda (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Core is definitely a misspelling; it should be Gore. Personally I think it should be left in; the fact that she travelled with him is just additional information, not the reason she's called an ambassador. It helps to establish the context of the trip to Cambodia. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Open vs closed casket and source

The article reads, "She wanted her husband's casket to be closed, even though her brother-in-law and Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy wanted it to be open. " The source is a blogger (top search results Twitter, LinkedIn, and Tumblr) so not reliable. Finally, even if the source were reliable, it says exactly the opposite. "Bobby had not yet looked at JFK’s remains. To finally make the decision about whether or not JFK would have an open casket, RFK took a look at his brother’s face. When he saw Jack in the coffin, RFK immediately agreed with Jackie’s feelings, “She’s right. Close it.” So, this is not at all clear. --Gotanda (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Later years--unsourced

Article reads, "This was her first political event in almost ten years. " Ref is a photograph with the caption, "Peter Tufo Lee Radziwill her son Anthony and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis at the 1976 Democratic National Convention in New York." Does not support the statement. --Gotanda (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

iagreetosee reference

The article states, "During his Senate re-election campaign, John F. Kennedy began to see how popular his wife was. He asked her to campaign with him for his re-election. In November 1958, Kennedy was re-elected to a second term in the Senate and he thanked his wife for her role in the campaign." but this is not well-supported by the reference.

• During his Senate re-election campaign, John F. Kennedy began to see how popular his wife was. (Nowhere in the cited reference)
• "he thanked his wife for her role in the campaign" (Might be assumed, but not stated. Looks like a change in meaning from the complex EnWP passage, "He credited Jacqueline's visibility in the ads and stumping as vital assets in securing his victory, and he called her "simply invaluable"")

Not sure what to do with this one. --Gotanda (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the reader will not doubt that he said thank you to his wife. It's taken for granted. Would be a surprise if he didn't! I think you don't need a source for natural behaviour, but you would need a source if he had criticised her!! By the same token, it would be seen by some experienced writers as something which might should be left out completely. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless he thanked her is some notable way. ie. taking out a half page ad in the Wash Post to say thank you - notable. Rolling over in bed to say "thanks hon. You were a great help today" - not notable. Pure Evil (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, if this is reported as notable in the article, then it should be some kind of significant "thanks" such as publicly crediting her for the success of the campaign in a speech or in print. Otherwise cut it, but that would reduce the celebrity status of the article subject. --Gotanda (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Demoted to regular article

Hello,

this used to be a very good article in the past. However issues were identified that need fixing. Considerable work has been put into fixing the issues.

I have therefore demoted this article. Don't hesitate to re-submit for evaluation, when you think the article is ready.

Ideally, first try getting to GA first. Eptalon (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

A start: "then - representative" is not good English. "John Kennedy, who was then..." is the right way. To qualify, the article has at least to be written in standard English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Procedure

We get ourselves in this position because we were not tough-minded at the start. Plagued with pleading "Please promote XYZ", we gave in too easily. We should remember that when the next case comes along... Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't follow the procedures really. These sit around forever. When action stops, I assume they are dead, but one admin can come along and just promote. I'd suggest two admins signing off and notifying people in the discussion before promotion. --Gotanda (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)