Talk:Eliane Morissens/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 15:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for picking her up. Definitely a "recovery" of a life that had impact but was buried. SusunW (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Really interesting, and I found the article very readable. I've put a couple of points below, and will have another look (probably tomorrow) but I'm pretty sure anything I have to say will be minor. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio Check

• I reviewed the matches over 5% from Earwig's Copyvio detector. No concerns - they are titles, etc.

Images

• There is a suitable rationale for the use of Eliane Morissens, 1982.jpg, which is suitable quality; the other image is CC 1.0, from the Dutch National Archives. Alt text could be added for the second image. Captions and positioning are fine.

• Dammit! I am trying to remember to write alt text on all images. This one slipped through, but it's there now. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Early life and eduction

• "for her if you were a lesbian" - probably better to specify who the "her" applies to, or slightly reword.

• Maybe it's clearer if I say for herself? SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, that works. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Career

• Consider dividing into shorter sections, if you can see a suitable way to do this.

• I gave it a go. Better? SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I think so. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "province of Hainaut" - maybe province of Hainaut"?

•  Done SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• I got an error page from the lonk on Le Monde diplomatique 1982.

• I've changed the link from page specific to the issue. Can you access it now? SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

yay! SusunW (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Formatting of dollar amounts should be per WP:$.

• I hate currency templates and always manage to get them wrong, but perhaps I've done it? SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "She did not disclose her lesbianism to her employer[6][5]" MOS:CITEPUNCT says that the cites should immediately follow punctuation, so could add a comma or move them. Also re-order numerically (i.e. [5][6]).

•  Done SusunW (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "She did not disclose her lesbianism to her employer" - as mentioned above, I didn't get to the Le Monde diplomatique source. Does it mention whether there was any obligation on Morissens to make such a disclosure?

• No and I cannot imagine that anyone would have voluntarily disclosed their sexuality at that time. SusunW (talk)

• "non-public information led Morissens to conclude" - I have no reson to believe this is not what the sources say, but, as they aren't in English and I'm sadly not able to read Dutch or French, could you tell me what this is based on? I just wonder if it's possible/appropriate to be a bit more specific about the nature of the "non-public information".

• Delpher sources have a tab to the right that says "Tekst". If you press that and scroll down, you will "usually" find a digitized transcript that can be put in various translation machines. I've found that Systran works best for Dutch. The Handelsblad says "Hoewel het niet openlijk werd gezegd, was het uit informatie van achter de schermen duidelijk, dat men tot de conclusie was gekomen dat je de leiding van een school met 1070 meisjes niet in handen kan geven van een lesbische vrouw." ("clear from information from behind the scenes") and from the French, Dumont & Deroover, "Cela a été dit, malheureusement pas écrit, qu'il était impensable qu'une homosexuelle dirige une école où il y avait des filles". (said, unfortunately not written). Perhaps it is better to say undocumentable information? SusunW (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• I was just concerned that a reader might conclude that she was supposed to disclose, but the current wording is fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• [5][12][14][19] - could WP:CITEBUNDLE

•  Done SusunW (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "The LGBT community was disappointed in the outcome.." - I haven't read the whole source, but it seems from page 47 that the source refers specifically to the French-speaking gay and lesbian movement in Belgium. I'm not sure this supports "The LGBT community"

• While it specifically states that the "French-speaking gay and lesbian movement had to deal with two lawsuits that were closely observed in Flanders", I'm not sure how one can limit it to the French-speaking LGBT movement in Belgium when she clearly had support from the international movement and the source speaks about international involvement in the Belgian movement (pp 44-46). It's like saying oh yes, groups all over Europe and the Americas were involved, but when the decision came down only the Belgian LGBT community was affected? This article clearly speaks to the European movement and its sometimes successful, sometimes not successful quest to use the court systems and specifically mentions Morissens case, but doesn't say there was disappointment, merely that the Strasbourg Commission and Court has been restrictive in its interpretations on freedom of expression. (pp 232-233) There is also an article that appeared in the ILGA bulletin "The Eliane Morissens Affair: A Lost Case" 4 (1988):15, which by its very appearance there would confirm the decision was felt internationally, but I have been completely unable to locate the article. UPENN says it is a Gale resource, but I can't find a way to access it. I sent an e-mail to UPenn to see if they would send it to me. Not exactly sure where to go from here. SusunW (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Original Question: Jun 17 2022, 12:45pm via System re: Is it possible to acquire an article?

I am searching for an article "The Eliane Morissens Affair: A Lost Case" which appeared in ILGA bulletin 4 (1988):15. It is referenced in various sources, like, but I cannot locate the original article on line. In searching, I discovered that your facility holds this reference source. I live in southern Mexico and have no access to any library which participates in interlibrary exchange and am hoping that you can provide me with a copy of the source." SusunW (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose The Resource Exchange got it and I have both increased the range on Borge and added the source from the ILGA bulletin. The only bit I am unsure of it our MOS says "Generally preserve bold and italics (see § Italics), but most other styling should be altered. Underlining, spac ing within words, colors, ALL CAPS, small caps, etc. should generally be normalized to plain text. If it clearly indicates emphasis, use italic emphasis ({{em}}) or, in an already-italic passage, boldface (with {{strong}})". In the quote DEFINITELY LOST is capped and underscored, so I think I did it correctly in the ref for Elsen, Casimir to use strong? SusunW (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• Seems fine. Looks like that there's not really anything else sources with which to expand the coverage of her legacy.

• Well, while looking for other sources on the previous question, I found a report which included discussion of her case for the European Parliament's review of employment discrimination. So I'll add a bit on that, give me a minute or two. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well it took longer than I thought it would, but it's done if you want to review that bit. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Looks good. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Footnotes, Sources

• Footnotes are lengthy but appropriate, and sourced. Sources all appear to be good quality, and no issues were identified in spot checks of some of the English-language sources.
• Note 3 - add a translation, per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE

•  Done SusunW (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Should feminism be wikilinked, or would that be an overlink?

•  Done SusunW (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose Thank you so much for your review of the article. Collaboration always improves the content and I appreciate your taking the time to look at one with multiple language sourcing. I think I've addressed everything except the outstanding issues of the non-public sources and on whether only the Belgian community or international LGBT community was disappointed in the outcome. Hopefully UPENN will answer quickly. I usually get pretty good response from e-mails, but we'll see. Totally open to other discussion/solutions. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose Do you have access to a library with interlibrary loan and would you be willing to receive the article? They replied but said they can only send it via that format. If you do, I could add you to the e-mail thread and tell them what library (well, I guess that's how it works). SusunW (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I've asked Megalibrarygirl, WiR's librarian and an actual librarian if she can help. SusunW (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, SusunW. I certainly agree with you about collaboration. I don't assume that I know any more than any other editor just because I'm reviewing an article, and sometimes I ask questions rather than making recommendations straight away, as other editors have probably thought clearly than me about stuff. I'm happy regarding the "non-public sources". It would be ideal to get a source to support the wider disappointment. Or maybe a wider page range from the original source, or other current sources, can be used. However, there's a risk of falling foul of WP:SYNTHESIS. I've got a reader's pass for the British Library and am a member of others in London, but I don't think that is going to work for an interlibrary loan. You could also try posting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request - I've had some brilliant responses from posting there. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose I have found that it's actually better in some ways to have someone who isn't an "expert" review articles on certain topics because they see holes where those who are familiar wouldn't. Besides which, had you not asked the question, I might not have found the info on the EU discrimination legislation. I've posted at the exchange if I don't know where to find a source, but in this case, I've found it, I just need someone to receive it. If you are willing to give me a day or so, I might be able to pull it out of a hat. I honestly have no idea how it works, as when I was in uni back before dirt, you had to ask at the reference desk and they would order something. You got a physical copy of a book, journal, etc. several weeks later. No clue how it works in the post-internet world. Usually when I use the Worldcat "ask a librarian" link, whoever responds just sends the article to me. SusunW (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose, thank you for your patience and suggestion to go to the resource exchange. I'll know this for the future in the event that the "ask a librarian" response is that I must use interlibrary loan. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. I truly appreciate your thoroughness in reviewing the article and that your questions allowed us to uncover new information. That, to my mind, is the best outcome of a review, making the article better. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

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.