Jump to content

Talk:Gisela von Pöllnitz/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this up. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • I checked all the books against WorldCat and most are held by a decent number of academic libraries, so that should cover their reliability.
  • Life:
    • You might want to explain why her being a communist before 1933 is important - I'm assuming this is meant to related to the Nazis coming to power in early 1933?
    • "she was interrogated for being a communist" who interrogated her?
    • "When she hit back" I'm assuming this is literally - that she hit back at the people beating her up?
      • Yes. Does it need to be updated in any way?
  • Schulze-Boysen group:
    • "Von Pöllnitz, a rebel and adventurer, and Weisenborn, an anti-fascist, were not prepared to sit in private meetings and stay silent about Hitler's tyranny." Perhaps "Von Pöllnitz, a rebel and adventurer, and Weisenborn, an anti-fascist, were not content to just meet in small groups or stay silent about Hitler's tyranny."?
    • "The unit also directed" - which unit is meant? Legion Kondor or Special Staff W?
    • "the German relief operations" "relief operations" will probably bring up the thought of humanitarian relief instead of military relief - perhaps "the German support operations" would be better?
    • "how to deliver the information" who were they trying to deliver it to?
      • I plan to work on this today. It is actually suprisingly difficult to answer and a really good question. I'm glad to asked as once I answer it, I can update several other articles with the same information, perhaps a 4 for 1 deal. scope_creepTalk 12:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. They were trying

to deliver to an enemy of German, and the Soviets were the closest. scope_creepTalk 15:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Literature -
    • Are these further readings for her life? If so, they should be in a "further reading" section after the references.
      • I want to keep these in this section. It is British English article. When they go into section they dissappear, like external links. scope_creepTalk 17:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, MOS:LAYOUT is clear - if they are BY the subject, they go in the article body, if they are ABOUT the article subject, they go in further reading. And MOS:LAYOUT is part of the GA criteria. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know that. But when they are moved to that section, it becames an American article, and then shortly afterward, names start be changed to their American names, and before you know it, the whole British English thing disappears, eventually wiping out the unique British cultural envelope it currently sits in. I would maintain that uniqueness as long as possible. This isn't some arbitary thing that just happened right now. Its went on for yearsm with lots of coversations but nobody really cares about it, that ways it goes. There has been GA's in the past where exceptions have been made for apsect. I'm asking this made for this one. scope_creepTalk 15:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some copyediting, please double check that I haven't changed any meanings or garbled anything by accident.


I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the request for second opinion. I first wanted to say thank you for writing about this woman. These stories need to be told.

The disagreement is about whether to follow WP:Layout with respect to the further reading section. Scope creep has argued that following the MOS on this point would make the article more American. I am not familiar with a difference in layout between American and British documents. More importantly, I think it's unlikely other people will edit this article much after it becomes a GA; the article did not even exist before 2019, and is almost entirely written by you. As such, I agree with Ealdgyth.

On an unrelated note: I don't think this sentence is correctly worded: The Gestapo soon realized she was not a fervent or dogmatic leftist, her activities for the KJVD and later for the Communist Party of Germany being merely a reflection of her thirst for adventure.[4]. Given she later joins the Schulze-Boysen group, this was a mistaken belief from the Gestapo right? If so, better wording would be: The Gestapo soon realizedconcluded she was not a fervent or dogmatic leftist, her activities for the KJVD and later for the Communist Party of Germany being merely a reflection of her thirst for adventure.[4]. Femke (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: Thanks for your consideration. I've updated the article per your suggestion. Its clear I can't take this any further. @Ealdgyth: Please close this GA. Thanks for working on it. scope_creepTalk 10:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gisela_von_Pöllnitz/GA1&oldid=1080772244"