Jump to content

Talk:Margery Wolf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMargery Wolf was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 19, 2021Good article nomineeListed
May 21, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Suggestions

[edit]

I have some suggestions that the GA nominator may want to address before the entry gets picked up for a GA review.

  • The lead section is too short to adequately summarize the information in the body of the article. The section on Wolf's works takes up a big chunk of the body of the article, but those works are not specifically mentioned in the lead.
  • The Biography section names Wolf's most well-known work, but it only gets a couple of sentences of coverage, and it isn't even mentioned in the section covering her notable works.
  • It seems like there are big gaps in her career timeline. She is described as a fellow at Stanford/CASBS in the mid-50s, goes to Taiwan, returns to New York, then is mentioned at Stanford again in a section that otherwise covers the 1980s. Did she return to Stanford in the 1980s, or is this mention just out of place? With a little bit clearer timeline, I think this entry will be easier to follow and a good bit closer to meeting the GA criteria.

Hopefully this helps. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Margery Wolf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I am not an expert on the subject I am happy to review this. I'm pleased to see an article on a feminist activist. At first glance this article looks in good shape. The first thing I'd like to discuss is her name. There is some guidance on names here: MOS:CHANGEDNAME And here are some examples of articles with a name change: Bronwyn Oliver and Zelda Fitzgerald. Am I right to guess she was born under the name of Margery Jones? I would say that we need a née Jones in the lead and an opening sentence of the Biography section that uses her original name. What do you think? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon Correct, I added it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in reviewing. Something unexpected came up. Hopefully I can start in a few days. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon Well, I hope so. You already started the GA Review formally. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about that. Perhaps in the meantime you could fix the Citation Needed issue in the A Tale Thrice Told section. The article can't pass with a Citation Needed issue. You can expect a full review before the weekend. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Finally here are some comments. Sorry again about the delay:

  • The infobox is missing a birth_name
  • The lead is rather short. A second paragraph that summarises her work would be useful
Not done yet.
Do not think so. If you feel that it is needed feel free to add it.
I wish I could, but I don't think I understand her work well enough. We can leave it short. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ethnographic should be linked
  • Her works continue to be published and taught in universities. --> this is not mentioned in the body of the article. Everything in the lead should come from the body of the article.
Not done yet.
?? This is obvious I would say.
It may be to you but everything in the article should be verifiable. The claim that someone's work from 25+ years ago is still taught today and is republished really needs a source. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Margery Wolf was born in Santa Rosa, California, on September 9, 1933. --> I believe it would be better to start the article using her birthname. And then introduce the name change when marriage is mentioned, adding she took her husband's name, see for example Bronwyn Oliver.
  • Is there a reason why the street names are given? Usually that level of detail is only given when it is notable.
Why street names?
In which way does this conflict with any GA Criteria? I do not see any reason against mentioning them.
One could argue it is unnecessary detail, but it is not a point of contention for me. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolf graduated from Santa Rosa High School at 16 and in 1952, she graduated --> I find the placement of this comma here a bit confusing
  • She was registered in the ... at Cornell University. --> may I suggest you split this into 2 sentences?
  • at Stanford University --> since you have mentioned every move so far, should it not state here that she moved again? We shouldn't assume the reader knows this is on the other coast.
  • Based on her experiences in Taiwan, Margery Wolf --> a bit odd that her full name is used here. I think it would be better to be consistent. Perhaps keep the focus on her in th eprevious sentence, and replace Arthur with her husband.
  • best-known work --> this needs a source: according to whom?
  • Wolf's work became a key part of her academic career --> this is puzzling to me .. isn't this always the case, for everybody?
  • Between 1980 and 1981, Margery Wolf --> just Wolf
  • After her retirement, Wolf --> just as an example, and it's just a matter of taste in style, but I would use a pronoun here. There are many repetitions of Wolf that I'd replace with a she.
  • A sentence about her death is missing.
  • the author's observations --> I think it would be more natural to use Wolf or she instead of the author
Not done. I can still see 3 cases of the author
  • The first four chapters ... and the organization of women's groups. --> This whole paragraph is too close to the source. Rewrite in your own words.
  • What is missing for each of the 3 works mention in Notable works is a reaction to / opinion of this work. Why is this notable? You can have a subsection Summary followed by a subsection called something like Impact perhaps.
Not done. I believe this is needed to meet the coverage criterion (it should describe the main aspects of the topic and I believe an academic's impact is a main aspect).
Also do not agree here. I do see the main aspect of the subject sufficiently covered. This is not an article about her works/books.
Yes, I see your point. Then again, she wouldn't be notable if it wasn't for her work. Maybe it is as simple as adding a line with the number of times it has been cited according to Google Scholar. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third work in Notable works need to have their year of publication
  • There is an interview with her which may have some good quotes: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3566909?seq=1
  • References: be consistent with date formats. I see 1 June 1985 and 2017-04-24.
  • Be consistent with names in the references: I see Margery Wolf and Wolf, Margery. I think the latter is preferred, using first= and last=
  • Several books are missing the publisher's location

That's it for now. Looking forward to the next version. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon Thanks for the review, modifications have been made. Do you see any further points which speak against the Wikipedia:GACR ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few things you seem to have missed. I have marked them above. In addition:

  • Image check: rights ok, but alt text missing
What do you mean? There is one image in the infobox.
I meant adding an alt= as per MOS:ALT, but no worries, I just made the edit myself. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source verification issues:
  • two-acre farm --> source says five-acre
  • Wolf graduated from Santa Rosa .. coded ethnographic material --> Page numbers are missing for source 2. If the claims are spread out over multiple pages, consider adding a reference after each sentence rather than the whole paragraph.
  • This book gave Wolf academic status in China. --> I couldn't find this in the Lisa Rofel interview, at least not on page 597, is it on another page? What is mentioned on p.597 is that it initially was not seen as academic work, which I think is notable enough to be included in the article.
  • Between 1980 and 1981, Wolf conducted ... after China allowed access to Western scholars --> I could not find this in ref 7 or 8. Did I miss it?
  • She was hired in 1985 by the University of Iowa as full professor of anthropology and chair of the women's studies program, where she remained until her retirement in the spring of 2001. --> This needs to be rewritten. This is a straight copy and paste from source 11
  • What the Water Buffalo Forged --> source calls it What the Water Buffalo Wrought"
  • The Revolution Postponed: Women in Contemporary China --> I could not verify this whole paragraph because I don't have access to the full book. What I find odd though is that the reference suggests all the claims can be verified from page 112 onward.
  • I get page not found for source Goldman, Russell; Boehler, Patrick (2015-10-29)

That's it for now. Looking forward to the next version. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon Thanks, see my comments above - the rest I will check within the next 2 days.CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon Done. The NYTimes moved the source around, I will archive it. Rest was changed/improved as desired. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed one more thing: the 2nd and 3d subsection in Notable works seem to be in the wrong order. Or is there a reason why the 1992 book precedes the 1985 one? Edwininlondon (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon Corrected. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Edwininlondon - anything missing? CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CommanderWaterford, yes, what is still missing is material in the body of the article that backs up the claim "played a formative role in anthropology" in the lead. We need a source for that and a something in the body. I do not see how the formative claim can follow from the material in the article at the moment. Once that is resolved the article can pass. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon Sorry but the article has already being reviewed for being notable. Google Scholar presents you thousands of cites of her works - we are not going to discuss if she is notable or not here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Please take note of the 6 GA criteria (Well written / Neutral / Stable / Broad Coverage / Illustrated) - all of them are fulfilled, this is not a FA Review. I will insert the Google Scholar Link today but at the end of the day I am honestly expecting a pass for this Review. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a paragraph summarising her work to the lead. I believe the article now meets the GA criteria. I have promoted it. Thanks, Edwininlondon (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/isbn/9780804765619/html https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=3233 https://www.legacy.com/amp/obituaries/pressdemocrat/185179426. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Margery Wolf

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Clear consensus to delist (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margery_Wolf&oldid=1208383468"