Talk:Berit Wallenberg

Berit Wallenberg was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 21, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Women in Red: Women in Europe (2021)

This article was created or improved during the Women in Europe contest hosted by the Women in Red project from April to June 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology: Women in archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women in archaeology task force.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to like this article, and I think the subject is deserving of being the subject of a good article, but I don't think this article was ready for a good article nomination. It does not appear to be a properly written synthesis of multiple in-depth independent sources about the subject, but rather a close paraphrase (and to the extent that it varies, an inaccurate paraphrase) of a single source, seeded with other unverifiable references to make it look more legitimate.

The lead contains multiple unsourced claims that do not appear later in the article: - first Swedish woman to be appointed as a supervisor for the national heritage committee - only woman to receive an honorary doctorate from the Stockholm University (untrue, even looking at a single year, 2020, there are four others, Jane Gaines, Ann Åberg, Karen Kohfeld, and Joanna Rose [1]) More generally, the lead contains statements that appear to be aimed at establishing the subject's significance, but in a seemingly haphazard order and without adequately summarizing the rest of the article. (WP:GACR #1b).

References 1 and 6, the basis for most of the article, are actually a single source, despite often being cited together. Some of the text appears closely paraphrased from that source, without citing it (GACR #2d), to the extent that the only variation in wording appears to make the text less accurate: compare the lead "In 1936, she became the first Swedish woman to be appointed as a supervisor for the national heritage committee, responsible for the restoration of the Lovö church" with the source "became the first woman in Sweden to be appointed an inspector for the national heritage board in conjunction with the renovation of Lovö church in 1935", and particularly look at the parts that are different: supervisor vs inspector, "responsible for" vs "in conjunction with", and 1936 vs 1935.

The early life and family section is again closely paraphrased from references 1=6, despite having multiple other offline sources. The source says they regularly summered in Särö, in contradiction to the article that says they lived there once briefly. The education section is sourced only to references 1=6, still with the close paraphasing. Again, the variation from the source seems to indicate the introduction of inaccuracies; the source says that she took advanced programs in art history and archaeology, and in the next sentence says that she wrote her dissertation in 1931 but waited until 1932 to get the degree; our article makes the licenciate a separate degree and part of the advanced program. The claim that she was given a second degree in philosophy in 1942 is far from clear in the source, which says that a professor "appointed her as a licenciate" without mentioning philosophy, and which could easily mean that he gave her employment based on her existing status as having earned a licenciate ten years earlier.

Most of the photography section is not about her career, but about her collection of photos; it does not belong in the career section.

Some sentences, like "Later served as the regional curator of antiquities and archaeology, Greta Arwidsson, and the curator and art historian Agnes Geiger, their friendship with Wallenberg lasted until her death.", are ungrammatical to the point of incomprehensibility (GACR #1a).

The entire "Awards and Honors" section is unsourced. (GACR #2c)

We have a brief sentence stating that there is an entire published biography of Wallenberg, by Lars Djerf. However, it appears nowhere in the references. It seems likely that another in-depth source would provide a much clearer picture of the subject, and that an article not using that source is missing important details (GACR #3a).

I did not read carefully the rest of the career, personal life, and death sections (although I think personal life and death should be merged; they are both short), as it had become clear by that point in my reading that the problems with the rest of the article were already too severe.

I conclude that this is very far from passing the Good Article criteria (WP:GAFAIL), in being heavily based on close paraphrasing from a single source and in having large amounts of badly sourced material. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]