Talk:Käthe von Nagy

Article clean up, hurra!

This article was a huge mess with no reffrences or sources at all, including inaccurate formulations and countless grammar errors. In short, an unreadable article. I have now spent about 3 hours making it a superb article, by totally transforming it and added reliable sources and information, as well as correcting all the old nonsense. A few more improvements, and it could pass for GA status. This is how the article looked before my improvements. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

GA prep

• Some of the prose appears to have been a Google translation of the German article, so I have added the template {{Translated page|de|Käthe von Nagy}} to the talk page.
• Lead: the lead is too short, and contains material not present in the body of the article. The information that she was "fashionable, charming, and acclaimed" is not sourced, and it does not appear elsewhere in the article. The lead should include material from all sections of the article and give a concise overview. Ideally the first paragraph of the lead should give an even more condensed overview of the article, as this is all some people read, and its first few sentences is what Google will present in their blurb. Please see WP:LEAD for more information on this topic.
• Prose: Some of the prose needs work. I have done some copy edits; here are some highlights for future reference:
  • Don't use contractions
  • Film titles need italics (even foreign names)
  • Punctuation
  • Overlinking: We don't link common terms such as marriage, cancer, actress, singer
  • Don't use words that tell the reader what to think (for example, "Naturally, her parents did not approve")
  • Things should be linked only on first occurrence
  • Things should not be listed in the See-also section if they're already linked elsewhere
• Image: The image is templated as being in the public domain in the EU, but copyright laws in the United States are different. This image may not be in the public domain in the US. The Hirtle chart gives information on copyright status of old images.
• Sourcing: What makes this a reliable source? This? A Google and Worldcat search reveals potential book sources, such as Käthe von Nagy : Die Geschichte einer Karriere mit Hindernissen (1932) and Tainted Goddesses : Female Film Stars of the Third Reich (1991). Possible online sources (in German) are here and here.
  • The sources provided do not mention that she spent time at a monastery school, was secretly writing novels, or worked as a model. Please double check and make sure all the content is covered in the sources provided. If there's no source, take it out or look for additional sources.
  • Why is it unusual for a young woman to want to be an author? Also, this point is not covered in the sources. Either source it or take it out.
  • Quotation needs a source immediately following ("up-and-coming young actress of the European cinema")

Overall, the article is too short (only 561 words) and too thinly sourced to be promoted to GA at this time in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. Thank you so much for your comments.

• I wasn't aware the article was a translation of the German or Hungarian article, however, as I expanded it, I practically copyedited everything, as it was written extremely poorly, in terms of both grammar, pronounceable sections, and misleading information (as you can see if you click the link to page history I linked above to demonstrate how much I transformed it).
• I have nothing to do with the uploaded image in the infobox, so I don't know how helpful I can be there. The Film Star Postcards reference does have many of her famous postcards; I can write to them and ask if they would allow one (or some) to be uploaded on Wikipedia. That is, if they are the copyright holder of the postcards. Regarding the sources used, Film Star Postcards looked very professional, so I believed, or believe, it is reliable. Of course this doesn't work for Wikipedia, I realize that. I can ask the website(s) about their reliability?
• Despite massively expanding this article from an unreadable article to a proper one, I did not create it. This means, if there are some information, facts, or sentences unreferenced, it's most likely not added by me, as I mostly added information from the sources linked in the article. I did not delete the unreferenced information in the beginning of the expansion because the article, then, did hardly contain any words, and the article is regarding a person who is no longer alive; I hoped someone, or the editors who added it, would reference their words later once they saw the article was being expanded.
• Why was it unusual for a woman to be a write at the time? As I just stated, I did not add all information, and certainly not that part. However, I didn't delete this particular part because female-workers was very unpopular in those days (early 19th Century) and in general female intimidation was also commonplace. It is possible her mother, being aristocratic, might have giving her a talk regarding women in high-society or what kind "opportunities" women had in those days.
• I also intent to add a proper section of her filmography that includes a Wikitable and what kind of roles she played in each individual film.
• Lastly, you mention 561 words is too few words for a GA article. What would you say is the minimum (or standard) amount of words for a GA article?

Thank you once again. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• All parts of the article will be your responsibility in the event of a GA nomination, whether you are the person who added the content or not. One of the primary things that separates Good Articles from C-class is sourcing. Your GA reviewer could ask you to remove any content for which you are unable to provide a source.
• The fact that the article was likely initially a translation of the German article needs attribution in order to comply with the CC-BY-SA license, regardless of whether or not it has been extensively re-worked in the meantime.
• Images should be in the public domain both in the source country and also in the United States, where servers are located. If you can't say for sure that the image is in the public domain in the United States, your reviewer will likely ask you to remove it. Or it could be converted to fair use. The website Film Star Postcards is unlikely to be the copyright holder of these images.
• What I look for in a website to ensure reliability is not a professional appearance, but who is the publisher. For example, I would consider websites of a government body or a university to be reliable. Websites of amateur historians, forums, and blogs are not good enough. Newspapers should be the higher-quality ones such as The Times, The Telegraph, Haaretz, etc.
• Regarding occupations for women in that place and time, I do understand that this is the way it was. But you are saying something that is not in the citations provided. A source is needed, or it comes across as being original research.
• When it's time to build your table, please use the latest sortable table. Please see Tom Hanks filmography for an example of code you can copy.
• There's no set length, but I was afraid Eva Braun was too short at 2000 words (but it did pass). More important than length is comprehensiveness. There's a full list of GA criterion at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have gone ahead and removed ((Translated|de|Käthe von Nagy)) from talk page, because the current English version differs significantly from the German one. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)