GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Andrew Davidson ( talk · contribs) 13:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not trying to rush you Andrew Davidson, but it's been almost a month since this began and four days since I answered the last of your queries. Will you advise me of what we still need to do to move the article forward? Thanks! SusunW ( talk) 15:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Andrew Davidson -- I'm just checking in on the handful of GA reviews still in progress for the Women in Green GA editathon event. Are you able to continue this review? If you have any questions about the process, please keep in mind that WikiProject Women in Green is a great place for reviewers to ask for advice or a second opinion. All the best, Alanna the Brave ( talk) 19:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I spotted some clear errors such as the typo Vasoncelos and felt that there many other copy-edits which were needed. Rather than itemise these, it seemed simpler to edit the article and so I've made a copy-editing pass through the lead. Of course, these can be reverted if someone disagrees. But there still remain some issues in the lead. The prose still seems too detailed and heavy for a lead. I used an online tool to assess it and it scored as about
twelfth grade – the final year of secondary school. This is perhaps debatable or a matter of
taste. But there are other issues that I'm not sure about. For example, the use of Spanish or English for the names of the various organizations seems inconsistent. Why is it the
Neutral White Cross when our article has it as the
La Cruz Blanca?
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I've not noticed any significant issues. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | No issues. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Some of the sources may be debatable in that there are different accounts of the subject but the general standard seems acceptable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | The accounts of the first marriage seem to vary.
Here it says "Sadly, their first child was stillborn, and the experience left her unable to conceive again, a loss she felt deeply. Additionally, she found herself subjected to physical abuse, which drove her to seek and obtain an early form of divorce." The article has a different account which seems to be based on a primary source – a death certificate. It may well be right but seems to be OR.
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig does not report anything significant and I see no reason to doubt it. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article doesn't say much about the subject's character and traits -- her appearance, personality, health, intelligence, &c. I get a general impression that she was passionate and strong-willed but would like more, if it's known.
Here, I see her described as an "Arielista". I suppose that's a political alignment but don't know much about it.
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | I drilled down on the first paragraph in the Activism section. This was to understand why the Guardian was being cited. The points made about Fransman seem quite tangential and anachronistic. At the time, it seems that it was normal practice in most nations for wives to take their husband's nationality. Fransman's comment that this is ludicrous is being misquoted because he just talks about the UK government rather than governments in general. And the point comes across as modern-day editorialising about the issue. This is counter to the subject's position which was that it was ok for her to be politicking in the US as her husband was American. Her dispute with the Consul General seems to be an unimportant argument which is not improved by the tangent. What I, as a reader, want to know is more about her husband, Robert Duersch – what was his profession and politics and why did she marry him? The article does not say and so is failing to focus on the topic as it should.
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | As noted above, I feel that the point about nationality and marriage is soapboxing a bit.
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | This review is generating activity but there are no signs of significant instability. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Looking at the
lead image, this doesn't seem to make the copyright status in Mexico clear. That's the country of most relevance for this and their copyright term is now especially lengthy.
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The
group picture of the Neutral White Cross doesn't say which woman is the subject.
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | We've hashed out lots of issues. These have either been amended or we have agreed to disagree or compromise. None of the remaining issues seem to be show-stoppers as they are either a matter of editorial discretion and taste or they are more appropriate for an FA review, which is more demanding. I wrote the article perfect is the enemy of good and so, in that spirit, will pass this as good to go. Thanks to SusunW for her patience and steadfast efforts. Andrew🐉( talk) 23:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Andrew Davidson ( talk · contribs) 13:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not trying to rush you Andrew Davidson, but it's been almost a month since this began and four days since I answered the last of your queries. Will you advise me of what we still need to do to move the article forward? Thanks! SusunW ( talk) 15:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Andrew Davidson -- I'm just checking in on the handful of GA reviews still in progress for the Women in Green GA editathon event. Are you able to continue this review? If you have any questions about the process, please keep in mind that WikiProject Women in Green is a great place for reviewers to ask for advice or a second opinion. All the best, Alanna the Brave ( talk) 19:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | I spotted some clear errors such as the typo Vasoncelos and felt that there many other copy-edits which were needed. Rather than itemise these, it seemed simpler to edit the article and so I've made a copy-editing pass through the lead. Of course, these can be reverted if someone disagrees. But there still remain some issues in the lead. The prose still seems too detailed and heavy for a lead. I used an online tool to assess it and it scored as about
twelfth grade – the final year of secondary school. This is perhaps debatable or a matter of
taste. But there are other issues that I'm not sure about. For example, the use of Spanish or English for the names of the various organizations seems inconsistent. Why is it the
Neutral White Cross when our article has it as the
La Cruz Blanca?
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I've not noticed any significant issues. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | No issues. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Some of the sources may be debatable in that there are different accounts of the subject but the general standard seems acceptable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | The accounts of the first marriage seem to vary.
Here it says "Sadly, their first child was stillborn, and the experience left her unable to conceive again, a loss she felt deeply. Additionally, she found herself subjected to physical abuse, which drove her to seek and obtain an early form of divorce." The article has a different account which seems to be based on a primary source – a death certificate. It may well be right but seems to be OR.
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig does not report anything significant and I see no reason to doubt it. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article doesn't say much about the subject's character and traits -- her appearance, personality, health, intelligence, &c. I get a general impression that she was passionate and strong-willed but would like more, if it's known.
Here, I see her described as an "Arielista". I suppose that's a political alignment but don't know much about it.
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | I drilled down on the first paragraph in the Activism section. This was to understand why the Guardian was being cited. The points made about Fransman seem quite tangential and anachronistic. At the time, it seems that it was normal practice in most nations for wives to take their husband's nationality. Fransman's comment that this is ludicrous is being misquoted because he just talks about the UK government rather than governments in general. And the point comes across as modern-day editorialising about the issue. This is counter to the subject's position which was that it was ok for her to be politicking in the US as her husband was American. Her dispute with the Consul General seems to be an unimportant argument which is not improved by the tangent. What I, as a reader, want to know is more about her husband, Robert Duersch – what was his profession and politics and why did she marry him? The article does not say and so is failing to focus on the topic as it should.
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | As noted above, I feel that the point about nationality and marriage is soapboxing a bit.
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | This review is generating activity but there are no signs of significant instability. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Looking at the
lead image, this doesn't seem to make the copyright status in Mexico clear. That's the country of most relevance for this and their copyright term is now especially lengthy.
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The
group picture of the Neutral White Cross doesn't say which woman is the subject.
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | We've hashed out lots of issues. These have either been amended or we have agreed to disagree or compromise. None of the remaining issues seem to be show-stoppers as they are either a matter of editorial discretion and taste or they are more appropriate for an FA review, which is more demanding. I wrote the article perfect is the enemy of good and so, in that spirit, will pass this as good to go. Thanks to SusunW for her patience and steadfast efforts. Andrew🐉( talk) 23:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |