Talk:Anita Raja

Extended stub and Refs

I’ve done revisions/added lots of citations and facts. Do you agree this is no longer ‘low importance women writers’ or ‘Unknown Importance’ Cat? Please review. Gentle Ink (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anita Raja/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gentle Ink (talk · contribs) 09:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead (summary) section currently contains 11 citations, none of which are repeated in the article body. Wikipedia leads are meant only as summaries of existing fully-cited material, so all the citations (and much of the text) need to be moved to the article body. You are permitted to repeat citations in the lead, but many editors dislike the practice as it makes it look as if "new" material is being introduced up there, rather than summarized. Best will be to move all the material to the article body, and to redraft the entire lead in summary form to cover all the material in the article body, briefly.

• The lead paragraph "In a much published lecture ... intense involvement." is not a summary of anything, is unsourced, and contains a direct quotation. The whole paragraph must be moved to the article body, and sourced.

• In addition, the specific claim about the lecture, that it is "much published", must be sourced independently, as that can't be proven just by citing the lecture itself.

• You may like to note that wikilinks are normally provided once in the lead and once at first occurrence in the article body, e.g. you link Elena Ferrante once in both places.

Article structure

• It is conventional to begin biography articles with "==Early life==" (or similar); then to move on to "Career". This can be divided into subsections, e.g. "===As translator===", "===As xyz===".

• You haven't said what else she does with her time, but since she says translation was on the side, it must have been on the side of something ... in short, the Career section needs development.

• It is conventional to provide a section "==Personal life==" to cover where she lives, family, and other activities. You can obviously add here that Starnone is her husband; it is remarkable that this isn't in the article, given the Ferrante material that you've worked on!

• If she also does charity work, is a trustee, etc., then a further section should be created for that material. It seems that she gives public lectures so that might be a good place to start.

Links to Elena Ferrante

• The "Links to Elena Ferrante" section needs further development, as it is clearly a major element of the article.

• There should be a "{{further|Elena Ferrante}}" link at the top of that section.

• The section needs some context for readers who haven't heard of Ferrante. I suggest you add a paragraph on her, based on the Elena Ferrante article. Unfortunately its lead doesn't fully summarize the article; you can copy the lead and its citations (with attribution in your edit comment, i.e. "materials adapted from Elena Ferrante, see there for attribution"), but you'll also need to summarize the issue of her anonymity and the (enormous) speculation around her identity, and to cite that.

• The Univ. Padova study mentions Starnone, indeed puts him in the frame as Ferrante (!); this needs to be stated, and tied to the statement about Starnone's denial.

• The section "Feminist outlook" is misplaced, and very curious as it dives straight into assuming Raja=Ferrante at the very start of the main text. Clearly it belongs inside the "Links..." section. Perhaps you were relying on the statements in the lead, which as I've already said are meant only to be a summary of the article. The main text should begin at the beginning, making no assumptions about the reader's knowledge of any part of the article's subject.

• The Feminist outlook material needs some sort of lead-in, along the lines of "If Ferrante is Raja, readers of Ferrante's novels may assume that something of Ferrante's political outlook represents Raja's personal views." Even that is somewhat dangerous in Wikipedia terms, as editors are not allowed to draw conclusions by putting things together (in a policy called Original Research), i.e. you need a citation for any such claim. At the moment, both of the Feminist outlook paragraphs are hinting that the views of Ferrante and Wolf represent those of Raja. Both conclusions are unsafe without citations that explicitly makes those connections.

Translations

• This section should be the last one in the main text.

• The list should be in chronological order, not the reverse.

• I suggest you put the dates first rather than at the end, and do without the parentheses.

• Book titles should all be in italics, e.g. Quel Che Ho Visto e Udito a Roma.

Images

• The lead image is fine.

Sources

• Many of the sources have no date; at the least, you need an access-date for each news item or website.

Summary

• This article needs a considerable amount of rewriting and development. If you are happy to do that, please say so now and give me an indication of how long that will take; then do the work, ping me when you are ready, and I'll review the article again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)