Wikipedia

Talk:Women's International Democratic Federation/GA2

< Talk:Women's International Democratic Federation
Latest comment: 17 days ago by Fritzmann2002 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 17 days ago78 comments3 people in discussion
Passed. Fritzmann (message me) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: SusunW (talk · contribs) 14:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Hello! I'm going to go after this one as a part of the backlog drive. I imagine I'll have it done by the end of the weekend, if not sooner. Kimikel (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Verdict: Overall, this is a quality article; however, it needs a little work before the GA nomination can be approved. I'm going to put this on a 7-day hold to give you time to consider and implement the following suggestions: Kimikel (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kimikel, hurricane Beryl is set to hit the Yucatan tomorrow morning, meaning I may or may not have internet service. I will try to answer these tomorrow. Appreciate you picking up the review. SusunW (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SusunW in that case i hope you remain safe; please disregard the initial timeline and get to it whenever if at all possible. Kimikel (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks like she won't land here until around 5 P.M. so I'll try to answer today. SusunW (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Kimikel I think I have answered everything except one point which I had a question on. Pressure is shifting, winds are starting to blow. Sprinkling but no real rain yet. Will be within 5-6 miles of us in a few hours, so no clue what happens then. SusunW (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SusunW: I think I just misread that one sentence you had a question on. With all of the changes made, in my opinion, this is a Good Article. An experienced reviewer will verify my review at some point. Thank you for your quick and quality work, and I hope that you stay safe. Kimikel (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Kimikel Thank you very much. It was a pleasure working with you. We're prepared, should be safe, but with weather one never really knows. SusunW (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fritzmann2002 is this review ready to be closed? Kimikel (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Kimikel, the only thing unanswered from my end is putting the references for the notes section in the same style as the refs for the rest of the article. As soon as that is taken care of, feel free to promote the article. It looks great! An excellent contribution to the encyclopedia. Fritzmann (message me) 21:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well-written  

edit
  • Copyvio-free from the check I ran. Only matched on org names and titles

Infobox

edit
  • Headquarters says Paris->East Berlin but article says that HQ moved back to Paris and later Brasilia; when I looked it up, it said it was in San Salvador. I would research where it is currently and update that in the infoxbox and the article.
Agreed. Updated with sourcing. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • Citation from de Haan needs either an inline citation or to be removed.
  Done SusunW (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Founding of the WIDF

edit
  • "president of the International Alliance of Women attended the congress" > president of the International Alliance of Women, attended the congress
  Done SusunW (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rivalry with other international organizations

edit
  • "and the WIDF itself" > and the WIDF.
  • "Peace as seen by WIDF members, unlike the pacifist stance of the western feminist groups, was not an avoidance or absence of war, but could only be attained if social justice was achieved,[27] and oppression and exploitation ceased." > this whole sentence is a little difficult to read. I would try: Unlike the pacifist western feminist groups, WIDF members did not see peace as the avoidance or absence of war; rather, they viewed it as the achievement of social justice and the cessation of oppression and exploitation.
  • "the WIDF board at its founding" > at its founding, the WIDF board

Early activism (1945-1950)

edit
  • "along the lines of the popular front." > which popular front is "the" popular front? this could be clarified
  • It seems a bit redundant to say "The US affiliate... formed along the lines of the US popular front." Can you clarify what you mean?
  • "joined WIDF because of its support for decolonization" > joined the WIDF because of its support for decolonization
  • "mission in 1946, through" > mission in 1946 through
  • "trip planned to" > trip which was scheduled to
  • "1949, because of the support it had been given by " > 1949 due to the support it had received from
  • "organization, Gerwis (later re-named Gerwani)" > organization, Gerwis (later re-named Gerwani),
  • "changing public opinion which had" > changing public opinion, which had
  • "Edith García Buchaca led" > Edith García Buchaca, led

Cold War changes (1951–1990)

edit
  • "spent twelve days, in May 1951" move "in May 1951" to either the beginning or end of sentence
  • "was focused in North Korea" > was focused on North Korea
  • "English, German, and Spanish and" > English, German, and Spanish, and
  • "U.N." > UN
  • "Radio Free Europe;[72] Women United sent" Radio Free Europe.[72] Women United also sent
  • "The United States with support from Britain, led a successful crusade in 1954,[76] to" > The United States, with support from Britain, led a successful crusade in 1954[76] to
  • "banned WIDF in 1951, after its" > banned WIDF in 1951 after its
  • "The Indonesian delegation led" > The Indonesian delegation, led
  • "Human Rights) to" > Human Rights), to
  • "When WIDF raised the" > When the WIDF raised the
  • "Status of Women it did not" > Status of Women, it did not
  • "Undeterred, WIDF" > Undeterred, the WIDF
  • "a member of the WIDF affiliate, the National Council of Romanian Women" > a member of the National Council of Romanian Women, a WIDF affiliate.
  • "Year in 1975, but did" > Year in 1975; however, it did
  • "affiliated organizations of WIDF" > affiliated organizations of the WIDF
  • "states and the remaining 33" > states; the remaining 33
  • "In 1976, WIDF" > In 1976, the WIDF
  • "In 1980, WIDF" > In 1980, the WIDF
  • "(Instraw)" > (INSTRAW)
  • "Middle East,[107] for leadership" > Middle East[107] for leadership
  • "WIDF also established" > The WIDF also established
  • "FIDW" > what is FIDW? clarify
  • "in 1986, by Javier" > in 1986 by Javier

Reorganization and current status (1991–present)

edit
  • "on Women many WIDF" > on Women, many WIDF
  • "organizations been dissolved" > organizations had been dissolved

Scholarly perception of the organization

edit
  • "WIDF, although it was inaugurated in Paris, was" > Although it was inaugurated in Paris, the WIDF
  • "If WIDF was" > When the WIDF was
  • "perception of WIDF was" > perception of the WIDF was
  • "the activists of WIDF" > activists of the WIDF
  • "cold war,[17] and" > Cold War[17] and
  • "ascertain as there" > ascertain, as there
  • "hands, some materials were destroyed, and others" > hands; some materials were destroyed and others
  • " WIDF incorporated" > the WIDF incorporated
  • "religion, to determine" > religion to determine
  • "Taewoo Kim" > who is Taewoo Kim? add an occupation like Historian or Writer or something
  • "documents, and research" > documents and research

Other post-1945 international "communist fronts"

edit
  • Recommend removing this header entirely, not very necessary. If you deem it necessary, recommend changing to "Other post-1945 organizations labelled as communist fronts" to appear more natural

Verifiable  

edit

Source spot check: Overall sufficient, though it does rely on communist state media for dates of conferences and other basic facts

  • "Fortalecen cooperación Federación Democrática Internacional de Mujeres y Unión de Mujeres de Vietnam": supports facts in article. reliable for this purpose
  • "Congrès de la renaissance": reliable, supports facts in article
  • "Liu, Rosa; Jian, Zhao": supports article, not sure if the CCP's official newspaper is a reliable source, but works for this purpose since it's just used to date a conference

Broad  

edit
  • Very comprehensive in its coverage.

Neutral  

edit
  • Article is neutral

Stable  

edit
  • Stable, no edit wars

Illustrated  

edit
  • Images are representative of article's content and well-captioned
  • I believe the logo image at the top of the article is incorrectly licensed. The user who uploaded it claims that it's their own work, which is unlikely. that should be labelled with the correct license
  • I'm just going to remove it because I am unsure of it. If the person who uploaded it drew it, it is hard to know if it violates trademark rules and if they used someone else's work, the license is wrong. Changed it for a stamp that has clearer licensing. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply


Review Verification

edit

Hello SusunW and Kimikel. I will be verifying the review and GA pass of this article; I may have a few minor questions or comments that I will leave shortly after going through the article. Fritzmann (message me) 15:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Not required, but it is very good practice to fill in the ALT parameter for images with a brief description of the image. This makes it much easier for those with visual impairments to understand the images in the article, helping accessibility. Otherwise, the article is excellently illustrated.
  • That's my fault, I saw the 1958 stamp didn't have one and assumed the others didn't; on second look this is all excellent.
  • Where does the information on membership in the various notes come from? I think these should be cited at the end of the notes, even if they are the same as the references in the body.
  • Also confused here. Each note states where the information came from, i.e. a = (Cotton (1946) pp. 403–407); b=(Joliot-Curie (1949) pp. 553–555); c=(Joliot-Curie (1949) pp. 553–555) etc. SusunW (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, can you turn those into inline references so that they show up in the references list like the others in the body? Apologies for not being clear with that.
  • A reading of the "Early activism", "Reorganization and current status", and "Scholarly perception" sections gives me no concerns over the quality of prose in the article.
  • Are there any reasons for only picking the two selected publications?
  • The two publications in the "Selected Publications" section.
  • They were both discussed in some detail in the article and give a fairly good idea of the things the organization published. As there were no reviews or "reactions" to their other publications they weren't included. Some of their newsletters can be viewed at Alexander Street Press through the WP library, but determining which were significant without said reviews/reactions would be guesswork. SusunW (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • An additional spotcheck of ref 165 shows it is used effectively and appropriately, and I have no concerns about the quality of the rest of the citations and agree with the reviewer's overall assessment. however, I had a hard time finding the page number for ref 40, and it would be great if that was included like all the other refs, for ease of verifiability.

I am going to take this article off the list of those needed an experienced reviewer; thank you to both of you for working well together and making an already excellent article even better! SusunW, just ping me when you've finished with those couple of small points above, and let me know if you have any further questions. Fritzmann (message me) 16:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Fritzmann2002 I've responded, but am confused about questions 1, 2, and 4. Can you clarify? SusunW (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hopefully that clears it up, sorry again for any confusion. Fritzmann (message me) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fritzmann2002 no worries. I've pinged my collaborators for help with the technical coding stuff. SusunW (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fritzmann2002 It appears that my collaborators are busy in real life. I played around and tried to figure out how to reformat the refs, but when I do it generates errors (Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEJoliot-Curie1949553–555" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEWIDF1953264–265" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEArmstrong2016306" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEUN2023" is not used in the content (see the help page).), which I have no idea how to fix. Sorry to be obtuse, but I don't see how I can change this, as I don't even know what a "list-defined reference" is. I only know one way to format a "Note" and it does not use "efn", so I am clueless about how to fix this. It is baffling to me why working on WP requires writers to be coders. I am definitely not a coder and have no desire to become one. However, it is not a requirement for GA for the refs to be consistently formatted, only that verifiable in-line citations be present. They are definitely cited, so I am wondering why the article does not meet the criteria? SusunW (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SusunW @Fritzmann2002: I gave it a shot for about 30-45 minutes and couldn't figure it out either. Obviously it's some sort of formatting issue with citations in the notes, but I'm not sure how to fix it. At this point, would it be possible for you (Fritzmann) to go in and make the needed changes? If not, I feel like at this point the article should pass GA review despite that slight quirk. Please let me know what you think. Kimikel (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries, sorry for missing this reply. I am promoting the GA now after attempting to fix it as well, with no luck. The minor quirk should be fine, since it is still verifiable. Fritzmann (message me) 14:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women%27s_International_Democratic_Federation/GA2&oldid=1235284238"