Jump to content

Talk:Evdokia Reshetnik/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 09:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an interesting article which is included in this month's editathon on Green Women in Green. I look forward to reviewing it. simongraham (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

This is a stable and well-written article. 99% of authorship is by SusunW. It is currently assessed as a B class article.

  • The text is clear and concise.
  • It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style
  • The lead is of appropriate length.
  • Consider rewording "She was also charged with collaboration in the newspaper Ukrainian Word, though she had no affiliation with the publication." to "She was also charged with collaboration in the newspaper Ukrainian Word, though she had no affiliation with the publication."
  • I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference in the two versions, but I'm glad you brought it to my attention, as I think it wasn't very clearly written. I've changed it to read "collaborating with the newspaper" and linked it to Wartime collaboration. SusunW (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider rewording "began moving the collections of the Zoological museum to Poznań" to "began moving the Zoological museum collections to Poznań".
  • Consider rewording "Though her name was remembered because of the papers she had published, her history was not retold until the twenty-first century." to "Though her name was remembered because of the papers she had published, her history was not retold until the twenty-first century." or "Despite her name being remembered in Ukraine because of the papers she had published, her history was not retold until the twenty-first century."
  • Currently the page Blind mole-rat is not linked in the main text. Consider rewording the main text to include this.
  • Citations seem to be thorough.
  • References appear to be from reputable Ukrainian sources. The links work. I am not able to read Ukrainian, but have confirmed spot checks as much as I can using online translation services.
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a violation as being "unlikely". The greatest risk is with the paper by Korobchenko that is cited. The overlap seems to be mainly the names of journals and of the National Museum of Natural History.
  • The article is of appropriate length with 1,390 words of readable prose.
  • Text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced perspective.
  • There is no evidence of edit wars.
  • Images have appropriate fair use and public domain tags.

Review

[edit]
  • In the lead, it mentions she "was a specialist in the mole-rats and ground squirrels of Ukraine, and was the first scientist to describe the sandy blind mole-rat of southern Ukraine in 1939." but the only mention I saw of her expertise in mole-rates in the main text is that she published a paper in 1939.
  • The discussion is in the section "selected works", i.e. "She published over twenty papers between 1939 and 1965 detailing new species and subspecies, including a unique blind mole-rat, Spalax arenarius, which is endemic to Ukraine." SusunW (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire paragraph is taken directly from Korobchenko, p 144. I did find an English source which describes the identification as having occurred in 1939 and added that. The link is to the exact mole-rat she identified, not the general term. SusunW (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see backing for the statement "She is known for arguing that ecology, species distribution, populations, and variability, should be weighed before making determinations that labeled certain animals as pests and harmful to the environment." in the main text.
  • It is a summary of Zagorodnyuk 2021 pp 27-29. In the body, it says "In her works, Reshetnik pointed out that rodents could be valuable for their skins as well as their fat, which was widely used during the war as a food source.[17] She published extensive analyses about the ecology, species distribution, populations, and variability of the types of rodents throughout Ukraine". In the source, it says that she conducted a study to show that gophers were useful for their raw materials, i.e. fur and fat, to counter "the fight against gophers". And that the study provided new insight into various habitats and species/subspecies previously unknown to Ukrainian zoologists. Happy to reword either the lede or body if you have suggestions. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. Is there a mention that she thought that ecology, species distribution, populations, and variability should be weighed before making determinations that labeled animals as pests and harmful to the environment or is it that she studied the ecology, species distribution, populations, and variability of rodent species, and believed that the utility of rodents was greater than their potential as pests? simongraham (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my mind it is clear that her paper was written to point out that rodents could be beneficial and should not just labeled as pests and targeted for extermination. I do not see anywhere in the source that indicates that she believed the utility outweighed the harm, just that the benefits needed to be considered. It specifically talks about her studying population concentrations, distribution, variability and the ecology, (which of course, would be drastically altered if the creatures were exterminated). Looking back at Korobchenko p. 141, she states "Тематикою основних досліджень Євдокії Григорівни в Інституті захисту рослин стало вивчення таксономії, мінливості, поширення й господарського значення ховрахівs…" ("The subject of Yevdokia Hryhorivna's main research at the Institute of Plant Protection was the study of taxonomy, variability, distribution and economic importance of gophers"), so again I get that she is arguing in favor of analysis before a decision is made, but not that she says specifically that their benefits were greater. I've added utility and economic benefits. Does that help? SusunW (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lead, "the inter-war and immediate post-war period" should read "the inter-war and immediate post-war periods".

@SusunW: Excellent work. Please tell me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking this review simongraham. In my experience, articles with all foreign-language sources are often not picked up, so I truly appreciate your willingness. I think I've answered everything, but have a couple of questions for you. Please let me know your thoughts. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: It is an honour. Your work on this is excellent. Please take a look at my clarifications. I hope that makes things clearer. simongraham (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
simongraham Sorry, it takes a long time to review all the sources, because I put them into multiple translation machines to make sure that it is accurate. On the mole-rat question, in the body, I linked to the species she studied, because various translators give the name as mole-rat, gopher, groundhog, etc. While to the general reader this may not be important, to someone interested in the science, specifically what species is more important than the generic name. At any rate, I think I have answered everything now. If not, please let me know. It honestly has been a pleasure working with you to improve the article. SusunW (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: Awesome work. I have enjoyed this too. It feels a very worthwhile endeavour overall.

Assessment

[edit]

The six good article criteria:

  1. It is reasonable well written.
    the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
    it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    all inline citations are from reliable sources;
    it contains no original research;
    it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
  3. It is broad in its coverage
    it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. It has a neutral point of view.
    it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
  5. It is stable.
    it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
    images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations, SusunW. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evdokia_Reshetnik/GA1&oldid=1101841796"