Jump to content

Talk:Maria Mies/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 22:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to review this by the end of the week. —Kusma (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to working with you on it. SusunW (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting woman and life. You've got a lot of great information, but you might need to work a bit to structure it more clearly. Currently the article is jumping a little between life and work and reception and ideas; sorting this will make it easier to read and show more clearly what is great about Maria Mies. —Kusma (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons I wanted to have this reviewed, is this point. Happy to adjust it in any way. A bit on the history: Gerda found it and knowing that I have an interest in women's studies asked for help. There was a huge section of OR which could not be used and had to be deleted, leaving the article without any analysis of her work. I left the structure that had previously been in the article in place but found reviews for her works from secondary sources to try to build back the important aspects of her work. (Personally, I do not like splitting personal life out in a separate section. For public figures it might make sense if they have both a private life and a public persona, but for most of us mere mortals, our personal life provides context for our lived experiences and doesn't happen separately from a career.) SusunW (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

[edit]
  • Lead: Will come back later and address whether it is a good summary of the article. Just "Her pioneering work is recognised internationally" sounds a bit like puffery, and it would be good to either tone it down or clarify in what way it was recognised (awards? citations?) or by what kind of people.
  • You will see that most of the reviews of her work are mostly not from German sources, i.e. Spanish, Portuguese, Canadian, Turkish, etc. and they have been translated into multiple languages. Not exactly sure if it helps to add something like has been analyzed by scholars and translated or something to that effect. SusunW (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just don't say "recognised" or "pioneering" without clear attribution. It is obvious from the reviews that her work was widely read, but "recognised" sounds more like she received prizes or awards for it.
  • Early life and education: Hillesheim was not in Rhineland-Palatinate because that state didn't exist yet. I am pretty certain it was in the Rhine Province of Prussia.
  • originally it said "She came from a rural background in the Vulkaneifel", as the source states, but it was changed after nomination by DaxServer to say Rhineland-Palatinate. I concur that according to our article Rhineland-Palatinate didn't exist in 1931 as it was created in 1946. Our article on Vulkaneifel doesn't mention what state it was in. This says Prussia acquired Eifel in 1814. this says the Rhine Province was created in 1824. So far I haven't found any source that says what Province Vulkaneifel was in. this says Rhenish Prussian Eifel, perhaps that verifies the location? SusunW (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Eifel (not just the volcanic parts) was in the Rhine Province (also called Rheinland), see for example this 1905 map. Hillesheim is just north of Gerolstein, which is close to the "i" of "Eifel". —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% sure I cannot cite to a map, OR and all. Are we in WP:BLUESKY territory, because I kind of feel like we need a source. SusunW (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maps can be cited (visual information is still information), but the problem with my map is that it is from 1906. In any case, it is more important to get the correct information into the article than to cite it, as we are talking about something not really relevant to her, just to her place of birth. —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you and your patience with my OCD tendencies. ;) I've compromised and added now in... SusunW (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Career: "her male students enrolled to enhance their ability to study engineering, women took her courses to prolong their independence" the source says the men wanted to go to Germany to study engineering and the majority of women wanted to avoid getting married. You could also say that this is in effect sourced to her autobiography.
  • Added majority. Am happy to say Irene Franken [de] says it's in her autobiography, if you think it is needed, but I don't have any access to that work. Almost every biographical snippet about her tells about this disparity among her Indian students, so I am not convinced it isn't discussed elsewhere in her work. SusunW (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect it is elsewhere, so it is ok not to attribute it (but perhaps look out for it in other sources). —Kusma (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think abbreviating Goethe Institute as GI is necessary here
  • "To complete the practical requirements" practical requirements of what?
  • "She had first developed her ideas about how women's studies and feminist scholarship should proceed in a 1977 paper" this sentence comes up a bit sudden with little connection to what is right before it.
  • Hmmm, I see the connection. She developed a master's program in women's studies along the lines of her previous theories. Maybe if I say "The programme was based on ideas she had first developed about women's studies and feminist scholarship in a 1977" the connection becomes obvious? I made it into a new paragraph, and hopefully with the rewording it links? SusunW (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seven steps to completely re-imagine research" can we learn a bit what they are, and how this research would differ from traditional research?
  • Difficult. I could not find any detailed review of that particular work. Lots of them talk about it being a new methodology, but none outline the points specifically. I can look at what the deleted section says the work contained, but I don't have access to it. Let me see what I can do. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've done what I think I can without something telling me specifically what her ideas were point by point. Weird that people were praising it but don't say a lot about the meat of it. I've put it here in the career section because it doesn't really tie to her other works as it was based on methodology. SusunW (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at how she describes it in the preface of the 2012 edition of Lace Makers, where she says "The most important of these theses is that You have to change a thing before you can understand it (Mies, 1983). That means practice comes before theory, not the other way round." which is quite a non-scholarly way to do things... —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the mid-1980s, she published her most important works which explored the links between patriarchy, capitalism and colonialism in the exploitation and subjugation of women" that sentence comes quite late in the section, which I think is a bit confusingly written. Perhaps you could try to be more chronological and move some more of the content about her works and thought into the "scholarly" section later.
  • I've moved it into the scholarly section, which I've bumped up to follow the career chronology.
  • When was she active with Attac?
  • Personal life: could come after scholarly contributions, as the "career" section is more linked to that than to the life. Personal life at end is fairly common in biographies here. The stuff from "pioneer of women's studies" on is also perfect "legacy" stuff that should go to the end of the article.
  • I have really struggled with the section and I am going dismantle it. Means more work for you, sorry, but I just think it is better dispersed and consolidated into a death and legacy section. SusunW (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did she write her autobiography? And when are the "later years" when she moved to the care home?
  • Scholarly contributions: I think it would be better to start by saying what the scholarly contributions are than to start with their reception. Who are all of the other names?
  • Reworked. I am confused, there are no names in the paragraph other than "The anthropologist Danielle Léveillé" and Mies herself, so I am at a loss as to what you mean. SusunW (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am talking about the whole section. Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Claudia von Werlhof, Vandana Shiva, Jimena Andrieu and María Julia Eliosoff Ferrero are not introduced. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In her early works, Mies sought to evaluate how women's labour became hidden and created the perception that they were reliant upon a husband's income." Women's labour created the perception that women were reliant on their husband? Or did Mies create that perception? You probably mean something else. Also, what do you mean by "her early works"?
  • In the sentence above I defined exactly what her early works were, by name. But I've reworked the whole paragraph so perhaps it is better. (It goes without saying that Mies didn't create the perception that women were dependent; men who wrote laws making them non-persons did, or perhaps if you like systems, like legislatures, designed by men, who established that women had no individual nationality, couldn't work if their husband did, had to be fired or quit if they married, couldn't have credit in their own name, rent property, etc. etc. etc. She articulated how "non-personship" happened.) SusunW (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She saw family violence, not as a remnant of ancient society, but as a part of the processes to modernise." So she thinks modernisation is impossible without family violence?
  • It would seem so. The source says regarding male workers/women housewives, "Pour ce faire, un recours à la violence est nécessaire (cinquième chapitre) dans rétablissement de rapports de production basés sur une rémunération inadéquate...la violence en tant qu'extension du contrôle patriarcal sur les femmes et en tant que mécanisme de « l'accumulation primitive » par lequel les hommes tentent d'amasser des richesses et du capital productif...La violence patriarcale ne constitue donc pas le signe d'un passé féodal mais un corollaire nécessaire au soi-disant processus de modernisation...L'auteure termine son analyse en considérant les pays socialistes qui sont passés par une guerre révolutionnaire (URSS, Chine, Vietnam) afin de voir si ces socialismes peuvent procurer aux femmes une alternative réelle. Un examen approndi montre que les processus d'accumulation y sont basés sur les mêmes mécanismes que ceux mentionnés plus haut". SusunW (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "socialist development had created similar social structures" similar to Western structures?
  • hierarchical/patriarchal structures with women on the bottom. I added "limiting women". Not sure if that helps or not. (Definitely impossible, for me at least, to gear this article to a 9th grade education level.) SusunW (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gaining worldwide relief from exploitation" why would her system stop exploitation?
  • In her opinion, because people would not be accumulating extraneous stuff so people who were producing products would only need to produce what was necessary and useful to sustain life in a self-sustaining system. (Kumbaya! IMO, Malthus's "war, pestilence, and greed" squashes utopian idealism every time.) SusunW (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deirdre Meintel is Q55626697 on Wikidata.
  • "Mies' chapter 7" should probably be "Mies's chapter 7".
  • "it told of the successful resistance by women in Andhra Pradesh, to align with male peasants and protect their rights." Unclear. Did they resist against aligning with male peasants? Did the women protect the rights of the male peasants? The link to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants is a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG.
  • Changed it to read who aligned with male peasants' fight to protect their rights. It's an important distinction to my mind, because if they joined, chances are they would have been relegated to the bottom and shushed. Source says Mies's study on Andhra Pradesh relates to women's "successful confrontation and eventual alliance - not as mere adjuncts, but as social agents in their own right - with peasant men". SusunW (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " translated into Spanish in 2016, concluding that the issues were worsening instead of improving." was this a conclusion of the Spanish translation only?
  • No, translated into Spanish was offset by commas, thus, if you omit that phrase entirely the update concluded. The source says "Durante los años transcurridos entre ambas ediciones", i.e. original publication in 1993 and its revision in 2014. I've flipped the clauses to avoid confusion SusunW (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the turn toward subsistence and producing only goods that sustain life becomes questionable" what does this have to do with resistance movements?
  • Changed it to activist. They are talking about resisting policies and people who would destroy the planet, limit health care, etc. Many feminist texts use resistance in the sense of resisting the patriarchy, but I think that it probably is more associated with war for many people. Good catch. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

[edit]
  • Well written: prose clarity could be improved, see detailed comments above. There are many long sentences, sometimes with grammar issues. Some parts read like they were translated a bit too literally from German. Some structural issues as well (legacy embedded into personal life, should all be at end). Her work could also be given slightly more context within Marxist and feminist theory.
  • Perhaps I have done this, perhaps not. The problem with too much integration of theory is that it becomes unintelligible to non-intellectuals, so finding a balance is difficult. SusunW (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still need to check lead section.
  • Verifiability/OR/Copyright: Lots of sources, and especially those about her work are varied scholarly sources. Her life seems to be less well covered. Will make detailed comments below.
  • Broadness: So far I think most things are there. I am wondering whether it would be worth talking more about her religion (Schuster does so at length): originally Catholic, then very critical, and officially left the Church at some point (as in Germany, church membership fees are collected by the tax office, leaving the church is a very formal act). Level of detail is a bit uneven (a lot on her books, very little on the Frauenhaus) but OK.
  • Added a bit on her relationship to the church throughout the article. (Fascinating cultural reference. Who knew, paying money would be required to belong to a church? I think I have never considered that. I am not much of a joiner, of anything at all, but in the various countries I have lived, people come and go as church members and paying is entirely voluntary. Perhaps that varies by denomination, I have no clue.) SusunW (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I'm willing to say it is OK, but a bit more focus on voices critical of her methods and theories could be beneficial (and is available in the sources).
  • No issues with stability.
  • More pictures (one of her, for example, or of her Frauenhaus, or even of her husband) would be beneficial. Any luck?
  • There was one but it was apparently deleted from commons. I know very little about German photograph copyrights and even less about recently deceased persons. I am fairly certain that I read a debate which ensued and concluded that one cannot use a fair use image on someone who died within the last year. I'm open to suggestions. SusunW (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

Looking at Special:permanentlink/1162746770.

  • Looked through uses of 1; use seems accurate. It is a fairly pro-activist source, but the use for life details seems appropriate.
  • 4b: not clear from the source how long she was in the care home, and it says "I visited her once every day at the care home. At first, she recognised me and was glad to see me. But later no longer" which sounds a but different from what the article says.
  • 5b checks out
  • 7: couldn't access, will try again later.
  • Weird, but I know that archive.org is place sensitive. When I am traveling I cannot always access the same sources as I can when I am home. I can access it. SusunW (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 checks out, but the criticism of Mies's theories (for example on p. 98) does not seem to be reflected in the article
  • 10: checks out and could be used to provide more context (it is a critical study of housewifization and explains in which countries it seems to be a good model and where it is less so).

I think I have addressed most if not all of your points, but there may be some additional discussion necessary, Kusma. Please advise. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, I think it is much better already. Nevertheless I think the best way forward for me is if I just do a second pass and tell you my observations (I might have overlooked some thing in the first pass). And finally look at the lead section. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me, and as it has substantially changed is probably easier on you. SusunW (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

[edit]
  • Lead: "secondary instructor" somehow makes me not think of a high school teacher.
  • "She coined the phrase "housewifisation" for the processes that occurred to devalue women's labour and make it invisible." simplify to go without "occurred"?
  • Infobox could also have her other positions, especially the one at Frankfurt (fairly prestigious, even if Adorno was dead by the time she got there).
  • Early life and education: "a village in the Vulkaneifel region of Prussia" I made this more precise; as Prussia was so huge (about the area of Arizona, but a much larger West-East extent) the provinces of Prussia were almost as important as some states of the Weimar Republic (and a few things are still administered along the old provincial lines, like the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland; just believe me that this precision is important for people's identity).
  • Perfect. Trust me, I totally get it. I spent all last week explaining to people that yes, I do live west of Cancun (4-5 hours), but Mexico is huge and the gulf (of Mexico) coast of the Yucatan peninsula is no where near Hurricane Beatriz on the Pacific coast. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be no good link targets for the Pedagogical Academy (and those of Trier and Koblenz have been merged, split, renamed, merged and renamed again, then split and reorganised a few times since then).
  • Yes, I tried and couldn't figure anything out.
  • Career and activism: the sub-headings are a bit uninspired, but I don't have anything better to offer (perhaps drop "early" and "later").
  • Ditto. She moved around a lot and I couldn't find any logical break points that wouldn't leave one sentence paragraphs, which by definition is not a paragraph. Done SusunW (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced her women's shelter was the first; I think the one in Berlin came a bit earlier. (One of the sources has "one of the first").

Rest to follow tomorrow, I hope. —Kusma (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slow to review (work and family obligations), apologies. Good changes above.
  • No worries.
  • "protesting against a NATO plan to station nuclear warheads in Germany in 1983": I wonder whether it is worth linking to NATO Double-Track Decision#Protests to explain what this was about, but that isn't a great article.
  • Scholarly contributions: improved, but still a bit difficult to read with many long and convoluted sentences.
  • Consider introducing Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Claudia von Werlhof, Vandana Shiva, Jimena Andrieu and María Julia Eliosoff Ferrero.
  • "expanded on themes of domination bringing colonised people into the analysis." did it expand on themes of domination that brought colonised people into the analysis, or did it expand on themes of domination and bring colonised people into the analysis? The entire sentence "picking up themes ... expanded on themes" is neither easy to read nor pretty.
  • "and that basing their theory on that single premise, is flawed" better "and that a theory based on that single premise must be flawed" or something?
  • " She stated that especially given the lack of evidence that women collectively have ever universally shared experiences, the claim that subsistence activities can solve global distribution problems might be romanticizing their proposed solution." What does the lack of evidence of universally shared experiences have to do with the subsistence activities? I can't make much sense of this.
  • One size does not fit all. Reworked. Better?
  • Later life, death, and legacy: have you found anything like reception for her autobiography?

Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I truly, truly appreciate your help in working through this article. Not an easy subject as the topics she explored were complex and sometimes hard to describe in layman's terms. All I can say with certainty is that your review has been extremely helpful and I am very thankful your efforts. Let me know if you think it is sufficient now or if something else needs to be done. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these changes! I think more could be done to clarify her work (and for FA you would need to present it more in context of other Marxist and feminist scholarship), but it is now good enough for the green plus. —Kusma (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Mies/GA1&oldid=1163868772"