Talk:Ika Hügel-Marshall/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll review it within the next week. Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• I suggest mentioning that she co-founded ADEFRA in the lede

Childhood

• I would avoid referring to the subject by her nickname, Ika, and would stick with the surname, Hügel-Marshall.
• "By that time both" --> "By that time, both"
• "In 1952 when" --> " In 1952, when"

Adulthood

• "While working there she" --> "While working there, she"
• "In Frankfurt she" --> "In Frankfurt, she"
• "In 1986 she " --> "In 1986, she"
• "she had attempted" --> "she attempted"
• "In 1990 she" --> "In 1990, she"

Activism

• What does ADEFRA stand for?
• "In 2012 she" --> "In 2012, she"

Autobiography

• "It been described" --> "It has been described"

See also

• I'm not keen on wikilinking to ADERFA's German language article in the See also section. It may be better to add the org's official website to the EL section.

Nice job. Not too much needs to be done with this one to promote it. Ritchie333, please ping me when you want me to take another look at it. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Responses

About ADEFRA, good question! The webpage is here: [1]. According to their "about us" page, "ADEFRA" is short for "afrodeutsche Frauen" (Afro-German Women). I'll add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the above issues, aside from ADEFRA which Melanie has covered. I left one "Ika" in the opening paragraph of the body, because it immediately follows a sentence talking about her parents, so "Hügel-Marshall" at that point might be ambiguous. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

For ADEFRA, I've linked off the official website, and added a redlink to an article that could be created here as a translation of the German Wikipedia one, since there appear to be sources and independent notability.

@Rosiestep: I think the issues have been addressed, can you take another look? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Rosiestep for a quick and hassle-free review! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

And you're welcome, Ritchie! :) Drmies (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)