Talk:Maria Dulębianka/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Over the next few days I will review this article Mujinga (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Review

Lead

• Name - Maria Dulębianka is clearly the most common version but Dulembianka is also used and maybe should be added. If there is a convention for Polish names beyond Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Polish) I didn't find it.

•  Done Thanks for that, that version never would have occurred to me, but I verified that it is used, made a redirect, and added it to the infobox as an alt. SusunW (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Polish could be bluelinked in first sentence

•  Done SusunW (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Undiscouraged, she continued to strive for social equality, Polish independence, and cooperation between Poles and Ukrainians - this sentence could do with some blue links, perhaps social equality and Ukrainians.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• For comments on Galician Sejm and international Paris art exhibition please see below.
• The lead covers the article's contents very well, perhaps a last sentence on her death could be added.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Early life

• All good

Painting

• The nature of their relationship has not been conclusively settled by academics,[2][7][8][9] in part, because after their deaths letters were burned by family members,[8] but also because Konopnicka was aware official censors might read her correspondence and rarely wrote about family matters even in her published works.[4][7]
  • No comma needed after part

•  Done SusunW (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• • I don't think this is a pass/fail issue, but it might be worth giving direct quotes at [2][7][8][9] since this is clearly controversial and two of the four refs are in Polish. I'm thinking here about WP:NONENG, specifically As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.

• See footnotes I have added. I discovered a whole group of sources while working on another biography that explains the difficulty in Poland historically and I think that it clarifies the situation. SusunW (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• These footnotes are great, really useful! I still think at a point in the future someone may request to have a direct quotation for the two Polish sources and that might be worth adding, but as I said I don't believe that to be a pass/fail issue.Mujinga (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Mujinga, I did provide a translation for one of them. The other is more of a why must we know the sexuality of historic figures, leave them alone lament and no easy way to quote a specific statement. Glad you found the information helpful. Obviously, it is always complex to evaluate historic situations from a current lens. SusunW (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oh gosh yes you did. And thanks for the further explanation, I think that clears it up nicely.Mujinga (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• In 1900, at the international Paris art exhibition. the wikilinked page says Exposition Universelle of 1900, better known in English as the 1900 Paris Exposition, so perhaps that's a better name for it here as well (same for other mentions in activism section and lead).

•  Done SusunW (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Activism

• First paragraph
  • Since it appears the school was indeed set up, perhaps successfully can be added before pressed the city.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• • The English translation of Ster is not given.

•  Done except I am unsure if I properly coded the redlink. How does one create a title which codes the name to be italcized? SusunW (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Good question! Template:Interlanguage link gives no answer. I took the liberty to remove an extra sets of italics I think it's fine like that.Mujinga (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that was my problem as well ill gave no answers. Technology and coding are always my downfall on WP and I often need help with them. Writing and research are not a problem, but technical stuff on here is not intuitive. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• • The translation of Głos Kobiet (Women's Voice) is given on second mention, not first.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• • The English translation of Kuriera Lwowskiego is not given.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Second paragraph
  • she was given a home as a national gift in Żarnowiec - i would suggest she was given a home in Żarnowiec as a national gift reads better.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Agrarian party - going on Polish_People's_Party#Before_1945 this was the Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe so perhaps worth adding the link.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• • Galician Sjem - although this phrase is used in some of the sources, it is a bit confusing here for me since unless Galician Sjem is well known in English, from the link it seems to be the Diet of Galicia and Lodomeria in English or Sejm Krajowy in Polish. Górny says Galician Parliament.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fourth paragraph
  • London needs a wikilink. (Also first mention of Paris needs same).

•  Done, though typically I have been told not to link these two cities as they are so well known. SusunW (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• The funeral was widely attended as a patriotic event, attracting women activists, single mothers, residents of shelters she had established, as well as their guardians. Part of this sentence might be better phrased as women's movement activists and single mothers, plus residents of shelters and the residents’ guardians

•  Done SusunW (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Several of the sources, for example Górny, mention that Dulębianka has been rediscovered and celebrated by modern Polish feminists, so perhaps a sentence on that is worthwhile. Further either here or at its mention regarding Ster, I think feminism should be wikilinked.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• In 2018, a film, Siłaczki by Marta Dzido and Piotr Śliwowski was released, describing the struggle of Polish women to gain rights - I feel this sentence deserves a new paragraph and perhaps could be edited to something like: The film Siłaczki by Marta Dzido and Piotr Śliwowski was released in 2018. it describes the struggle of Polish women to gain equal rights.

• Sorry but I do not understand why this would be its own separate paragraph. This is not an article highlighting the film. In the reverse, the film was produced to highlight her legacy. That being said, I have modified the sentences. Advise if this is not sufficient. SusunW (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• My thinking was it needed a different paragraph because we were jumping from 1908 to 2018, but now you have mentioned the 1990s and I agree with you it's better as one paragraph. Mujinga (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Images

• File:Maria Dulębianka (SF).jpg is fine, uploader has been asked to provide where and when the image was first published but it does seem to be in public domain.

•  Done I think that is standard wording for the template. The source was already stated along with the publication date. Though no link is required, I added one with the page number upon which the photograph appears. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• File:Maria Dulębianka - Uczony z księgą.jpg is fine, just needs Scholar and book to be italicised in caption.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• The other two images are fine.

Review Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Mujinga I think I have addressed all your concerns, but if something needs further discussion or fixing, please ping me. Thank you so much for doing the review, many times my "foreign source" bios wait a much longer time before someone picks them up. SusunW (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

SusunW I'm grateful for your thorough and prompt answers, and I am now giving this article a pass for Good Article status. Congratulations! I've left a few replies above which are more comments than anything else. I picked the article because the subject was interesting, yes I didn't realise until later in the process that it's actually quite new. Thanks for an enjoyable process, I'll proceed with the steps to finish the review now. Mujinga (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you as well. It was a pleasure working with you to improve the article. SusunW (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.