Talk:Yella Hertzka

Photo discussion

Discussion of photographs is here SusunW (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Unexplained first review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yella Hertzka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: SyntheticSystems (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Criteria Good Article Status - Review Criteria Further information: WP:WIAGA A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) 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); (c) it contains no original research; and (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Review Well-written: Criteria Notes Result (a) (prose) Prose is good. Pass (b) (MoS) No MoS violations. Pass Verifiable with no original research: Criteria Notes Result (a) (references) References match up what is in the article. Pass (b) (citations to reliable sources) All statements are sourced. Pass (c) (original research) No original research. Pass (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No plagiarism. Pass Broad in its coverage: Criteria Notes Result (a) (major aspects) All major aspects are covered. Pass (b) (focused) In-depth coverage. Pass Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Notes Result Neutral. Pass Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Notes Result No edit wars. Pass Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Criteria Notes Result (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Images are good. Pass (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Image placement is good. Pass Result Result Notes Pass Some of the red links need to be removed but I will pass this article. References

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yella Hertzka/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 13:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article over the next day or two. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for picking her up Thebiguglyalien. I look forward to collaborating with you in improving the article. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I've finished the review. No major issues, just the usual notes about prose and sourcing that come up at GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien thank you! I genuinely appreciate your collaboration and thoroughness in improving the article. I think I have addressed all your points, but if we need to discuss anything further, I am happy to do so. Please ping me. (Note, I will be completely unavailable on June 12. Serious real life stuff going on.) SusunW (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I corrected a few typos, and the article now meets the GA criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

• The lead is a bit too long for an article this short. Some of the less important details should be omitted to reduce it in size by about one third.

• Maybe done? Let me know if I need to crop more. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is more subjective, but the "women's rights" and "schools and artist colony" sections are a bit long, which might hamper readability. Would subheadings be practical in either of these sections?

• I personally do not like multiple subheadings, but I know others do (and also like 1 sentence paragraphs, which I am incapable of). I have attempted to add some. Perhaps it's better? SusunW (talk)

• If Fuchs is her maiden name, it should be in the parenthetical in the lead.

• done SusunW (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• She founded the Wiener Frauen Klub and the Neuer Wiener Frauenklub, but it's not clear how we got from one to the other. Also, did they change the spelling of Frauen Klub from two words to one?

• I'm not exactly sure how to not go off topic about the 1st club, it only existed until 1902 and I already included those dates. If you think it needs a note, I can add that. Thanks for catching Frauenklub, I fixed that. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• the club began to focus on attaining – Could be shortened to "the club focused on attaining" for conciseness.

• done SusunW (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hertzka and the Neuer Wiener Frauenklub went on record as opposing the conflict – Was there anything specific about it that she opposed, or was she just upset that it was happening?

• No clue, in the source, says only "When war was declared in 1914, the club as a unit went on record in opposition". Modified it a bit to say formally opposed. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• From this congress, the International Committee of Women for Permanent Peace, which would become the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), was formed, and the Austrian members of the committee, Leopoldine Kulka and Olga Misař, were chosen. – This sentence runs on a bit.

• Broke it up. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• In Austria, Hertzka's public appearances and activities were increasingly limited as a result of rising antisemitism. In March 1938, all Jewish members of the Neuer Wiener Frauenklub were expelled. – It might be helpful for clarity to state somewhere in here that this explicitly affected Hertzka rather than just being something that happened around her.

• I'm sorry, I'm confused – doesn't limiting her activities say that it directly impacted her? The other sections talk about how it impacted her schools and business, but for her activism, all that could really happen is that she couldn't be a voice. I think that is shown, but am happy to discuss or take suggestions. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hertzka co-founded with Salka Goldman the Cottage Girls' Lyceum in the Cottage Quarter of Döbling, the 19th district of Vienna, in 1903. – I don't know if a better wording is possible, but this is a bit cluttered.

• Modified SusunW (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• In the early years of the school's operation, it moved several times. – This could be simplified as "The school moved several times in the early years of its operation".

• Used your wording. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hertzka distanced herself from both Goldman and Schirmacher – Schirmacher hasn't been mentioned since their meeting ten years prior, and it's unclear what relevance she has to Hertzka's life at this point.

• She was still writing letters to her "dem Brief von Hertzka an Schirmacher 1912", so I added a bit to clarify. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• She returned to Austria determined to establish the Höhere Gartenbauschule für Frauen (Higher Horticultural School for Women), but it would be several years before she did so – Was she determined to start this specific school with this specific name? Or did she just want to start "a horticultural school for women" which eventually became that school?

• Höhere schule is a generic term used in German as far as I can tell for a secondary or tertiary school that is not a college prep school.[1]. Affixing Gartenbau to it means it was a horticultural trade school and her focus was on educating women. I have never seen it not capitalized in the sources, so maybe it's a name? On the other hand, some sources call it "Gartenbauschule für Mädchen in Wien" or "Gartenbauschule von Yella Hertzka", so maybe it is a type of school, not a name per se? so I changed it to "establish a Höhere Gartenbauschule für Frauen". Does that work?SusunW (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hertzka often hosted garden parties, attended by many internationally known composers such as – Why composers? I would assume it's because of her husband's work in the music industry, but the article doesn't say this explicitly.

• Neither do the sources, but I meant "To foster their work" to convey that the intent was for the parties to be mutually beneficial. Oesch says "As the wife of the director of the well-established music publishing house Universal Edition, Yella Hertzka had been at the centre of the international cultural avant-garde for many years" and that they initiated events for their friends and colleagues. (2016, pp 156-157). The source to me implies her involvement was because of the business. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• and Hans Vetter, an architect and co-founder of the Austrian Work Association, an organization aimed at improving and professionalizing craftsmanship – This sentence runs on, and I think this part is to blame. Details about Vetter's work probably aren't that relevant.

• I took out the last bit...an organization... but think the rest is necessary to show his occupation, like the others in the list. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• also located in Kaasgraben, part of Grinzing, in the Döbling district – This description of the location is a bit wordy, especially since it's in the middle of a sentence.

• Split into two sentences. SusunW (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• The school offered training in horticulture and landscape architecture, opening the fields to women, and also gave general business and law courses, requiring students to grow and market their produce. – Should this be two sentences?

• done SusunW (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• the leading institution training women in horticulture and gardening in Austria-Hungary in the first third of the twentieth century – This might need to be reworded. In what way was it the leading institution? And I don't usually see centuries divided into thirds; I would write "in the early decades of" or something like that.

• The source says "Yella Herzka's school became the leading training institution for women in horticulture and garden architecture in Vienna and the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in the early twentieth century." (p 133) It doesn't define "leading" but it seems clear it was the only one or one of the only ones that admitted women as actual students. On the preceding page (p 132) it talks about the horticultural school at Eisgrub which allowed women to audit courses. The Christian Science Monitor says in 1927 there was a similar school in Bulgaria (not part of Austria-Hungary), and numerous sources say there were women's schools in England and Germany. I've changed it to say "The school offered the rare opportunity for women to achieve economic independence with training in horticulture and gardening or landscape architecture in Austria-Hungary in the early decades of the twentieth century." If that works then done. SusunW (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• It was closely affiliated until 1921 with – "until 1921" should be moved to either the beginning or the end of the sentence.

• done SusunW (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• In 1920, the alumni of the school founded – This is a new paragraph, so the school's name should probably be spelled out.

• done SusunW (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• she moved around twenty-five times – "moved around" implies an indefinite amount of times. This can just say "she moved twenty-five times".

• done SusunW (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Around 1944, she moved in with activist Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence because of health concerns. She had developed a heart condition from poor nourishment and hard labor, as well as a skin disease which caused discomfort. – Though it can be inferred from context, the use of "she" makes it unclear whether Hertzka or Pethick-Lawrence is afflicted with these ailments.

• clarified was Hertzka SusunW (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hertzka's husband, Taussig, was murdered on 19 May 1943 – Was he killed in a random act or systematically as part of the Holocaust? "Murdered" creates the impression that it was the former.

• Interesting. In my research killed in recent years has been replaced in Holocause literature by murdered, but I've changed it to exterminated. If that works, then done. SusunW (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• The phrase "her death" is repeated several times in the first few sentences of "death and legacy".

• fixed. SusunW (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Despite her prominence – This puts a subjective judgement in wikivoice.

• Credited it to Oesch. SusunW (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• also contributed to her erasure – This is strong language and makes it seem like it was an intentional act to destroy records of her.

• (Her and every other woman of significance, yes indeed. I've written and read many, many articles for examples Elizabeth Wagner Reed, Matilda effect, about the systemic efforts by academics to erase women's accomplishments, hide them behind their husbands' works, credit someone else for their actions and omit them from the historic record. Writing women out of history was definitely intentional.) Again, I'm happy to credit it to Oesch. SusunW (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Corinna Oesch, who has extensively researched Hertzka's life, noted that – Don't use "noted" to describe an author's opinion.

• I have never understood this rule, but changed it to wrote. SusunW (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

The sources appear to be reliable and high quality. The one exception is Geschichtewiki, which appears to accept user generated content. Is this source used anywhere in the article?

• Only used twice as a secondary citation, so deleted it. SusunW (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks:

• Gwinn (2010)
  • p. 126 suggests that they were partners rather than Balch being an assistant.

• I didn't say Balch was an assistant, rather assisted in the planning. Nevertheless, I changed it. Both the ONB entry and biografiA list only Hertzka as the organizer. Stern says she was one of, and only Gwinn names Green Balch. SusunW (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• • p. 127 mentions internationalism and pacifism, but it doesn't seem to support the sentences preceding the citation.

• Deleted it. It was giving background that occurred at the Congress for the split which occurred later. SusunW (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• • Where on p. 161 does it support Because their activities were limited by the war

• "During the war years, the WILPF continued its modified efforts", these are described in detail on page 159, no conferences, monitoring the situation in Europe, establishing safe havens for refugees/asylum seekers, and rescue of their members. Added page 159. SusunW (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Kraeutler et al. (2011) – Does this support that she was chair In the 1930s? Other uses are good.

• "Presiding over WILPF's Economic Commission, Yella Hertza interacted with members of the International Labor Office and organized an Economic Conference in Paris in 1931". Presiding = chair, IMO. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Krippner & Meder (2020) – All uses are good.
• Oesch (2016) – I'm not sure if performing administrative work for it is equal to served as its administrator, as the latter implies more authority than the former.

• Changed. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, there is some potential WP:Close paraphrasing from this source:

• • Hertzka fell into obscurity versus Yella Hertzka’s significant roles [...] had fallen into oblivion

• Disagree. Oesch said knowledge of her ceased to exist. I said it existed but became hidden. Not the same thing, IMO. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• • A general lack of interest in women's history, and neglect from academics in studying women's contributions versus A general neglect of women’s biographies.

• I see three words in common out of 16, but have changed the sentence to overall lack and indifference from academics. If that works then done. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• • scattered in archives around the globe versus documents concerning her are scattered around the globe

• Made it a quote. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• • Because of the outbreak of World War I, the year after it opened versus When war broke out the year after her school had opened

• I like that wording, thank you! SusunW (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Overy (2013) – It's probably fine, but I'll note that this source doesn't explicitly compare the British pacifists of WWII to the Austrian pacifists of WWI. Assuming this isn't an issue, all uses are good.
• Sekler (1985) – Good.

Broad in its coverage

All aspects of her life appear to be covered. One instance of excessive detail: Emil was hired by Universal Edition in 1901 and promoted to management in 1907. Under his administration, he began transitioning the publishing house away from classical and traditional music and toward avant-garde and contemporary music. – Is this relevant to Yella? It seems more suited to Emil's bio.

• IMO it is, because it explains what kind of business she took over. I've moved it to the "Business development" section and reworked that a bit. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

No neutrality issues.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

All images are adequately captioned, and they are appropriately tagged as public domain or Creative Commons.

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.