Talk:Augustina Gabel/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

Nominator: GnocchiFan (talk · contribs) 17:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article on a topic in a generally underrepresented field. I will start my review against the Good Article criteria shortly. simongraham (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan: Before I progress, please confirm that this article has been expanded "with text translated from the corresponding article in Ukrainian" as requested. simongraham (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I have attempted to do so, yes. If there is anything in particular missing, please let me know. Thanks. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work. Thank you. I will begin my assessment now. simongraham (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is relatively small, with 864 words of readable prose.
• The lead is also short long at 86 words.
• Authorship is 98.2% from the nominator with contributions from 8 other editors including bots.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Reword "alongside with"

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • Please expand the lead. As per {{MOS:LEAD]], "it should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I feel there is more that can be said to help the casual reader.
   • There are many redlinks. Suggest "police supervision" wikilinks to Surveillance. Is the article Kapitan (rank) appropriate for "Titular Councillor"? Is her prison listed in Prisons in Russia?
   • Suggest using cite templates rather than citation as this will give the parameters for journals etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.
   • Please add trans to the non_english titles.
   • Nikipelova 2011 and Gabel 1932 lack a publisher.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • The majority of sources are non-English and offline so AGF.
   • Spot checks confirm Mamon 2020.
   • Is the citation for Gabel 1932 correct? The link seems to be to the second volume of a series.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 1% chance of copyright violation, which means it is extremely unlikely.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • Please remove the Expand Ukrainian tag.
   • Please expand "was elected its member". For example, was she a member representing a particular cohort over a particular time?
   • The mention of her Catholicism is very brief and without context. Can anything more be said? Did her faith influence her actions? For example, id it influence her desire to join the Herzegovina uprising? Did she connect with Catholics of similar views?

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

   • The article generally compliant, but lacks detail on any controversies. For example, is there any information on her anarchistic activity in exile?

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images have appropriate PD tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate, showing her at different ages.

@GnocchiFan: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan:, reminder ping! simongraham (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Status query

Simongraham, GnocchiFan, where does this nomination stand? As far as I can determine, GnocchiFan hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over two months. It may be time to close this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

BlueMoonset Seems fair. Unfortunately failing due to non-response as noted above. simongraham (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2024 (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.