Talk:Feminism in Russia/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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. Fine
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). Fine
2c. it contains no original research. Fine
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Fine
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Fine
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Fine
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Fine
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pending

Comments[edit]

1
I prefer "organizing among," just to avoid political jargon (you have to come from a labor organizing background to understand the distinction between general organizing, i.e., making people more organized, and political organizing, i.e., forming labor unions and such). Accedietalk to me 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "feminist lobbying gained suffrage" - gained... perhaps earned?
Doesn't "earned" imply that suffrage is a privilege, not a right? :-P Accedietalk to me 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't think of it that way. However, I feel "gained" suggests it was easy to do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - agreed, it's exciting right now but too presentist for a neutral lede. Accedietalk to me 04:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emperor or Czar?
Ack, I thought I fixed that! It should be emperor consistently. Will do. Accedietalk to me 04:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1917 Revolution, catalyzed in part by women workers' demonstrations, generated a surge of membership in the organization, and in the same year, because of the society's continued lobbying, Russia became the first major world power to grant women the right to vote." - A little long, perhaps split?
 Done - Sorry, I come from an academic writing background; if there aren't 34325 clauses in one sentence, ur doing it wrong! Heh. Accedietalk to me 05:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • theories that underlay Soviet communism - It's defunct; is underlay or underlaid better?
 Done - good point! Accedietalk to me 05:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • less - Shouldn't emphasise something willy-nilly. Perhaps remove the italics?
 Done - yup. Accedietalk to me 05:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a copyedit, be sure to double check.
2
  • I strongly recommend archiving your news links with www.webcitation.org . You never know when they'll die.
3
  • For further development, I suggest you take a look at feminist publications and films, or works which deal mostly with women's issues (I'm sure Russia has some... Indonesia has tons, as does Canada and the US)
6
No idea. Accedietalk to me 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Accedietalk to me 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found another picture of her on Commons, which looks a lot less shady than that other one – it actually has the author's name (he died in 1903) and location of the original! I'm not sure I added the right tags, though. Help? Accedietalk to me 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this one might have to go. A shame; it's a really great image. Accedietalk to me 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Poster23.jpg needs the year of publication to prove it's public domain. Must be before 1946 to be eligible for use on Commons and Wikipedia, as it has to be PD in the US.
Sigh, this too. I'll take it out. Accedietalk to me 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a Commons person and certainly no expert in license or copyright, so I'll defer to expert judgment here. I can fix the Dolgorukova image for sure; not sure about the rest (though I'll give it the old college try to figure out licensing stuff), but I'm okay with removing them if they're really untenable. Accedietalk to me 04:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worse comes to worse Filosofova could be uploaded locally because it's PD in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added this to the Revolution/Soviet section instead of the two questionable ones you pointed out. Looks like a pretty safe bet to me, but what do I know? :) Accedietalk to me 18:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks

Based on this revision

  • FN1 - Fine. Perhaps note the lawyer was a woman (more oomph)
 Done - It looks slightly... not neutral to do that, but I agree that it's an important point. I wish I knew her name so I could avoid any ambiguity/POV there, but the source doesn't say. Accedietalk to me 05:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "female lawyer" instead of "lawyer (a woman)"?
Erg. That variant is definitely not neutral and rather insulting, since it implies the default lawyer (or doctor, writer, any other profession) is male, and a woman practicing in the field has to be distinguished by her gender. I know in this instance it would actually be used in a subtly different and important qualifying way, but on sheer principle I just can't bring myself to do it. Damn you, systemic bias! Accedietalk to me 06:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps try to dig up another source with her name? That would allow for a use without parentheticals and without the possibility for misinterpretation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested changing it primarily because I hate parentheticals pretty badly (except for translations) — Crisco 1492 (talk)
Me too. It was the least-bad option I could think of, but a name would be best. Ok, will work on that and the image stuff tomorrow, as it is long past my bedtime. Thanks, Crisco :) Accedietalk to me 06:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - The Guardian comes through! Accedietalk to me 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN25 - Fine.
  • AGF on offline sources.

Further discussion[edit]

  • On hold, mostly for the image issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The new images look fine. Passing as a GA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism_in_Russia/GA1&oldid=1140129115"