Talk:Lupe Cotrim

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lupe Cotrim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SusunW (talk · contribs) Will review this one. 16:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Lede and trajectory

• WP:Lede says only extraordinary claims need to be cited in the lede and to avoid redundant citations of material already cited in the body. As the lede is a summary of previously cited text, all citations should be removed and the sentence beginning Since 2007, the Institute of Brazilian Studies should appear, cited, in some form in the body.
  •  Done. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• is the daughter is not incorrect, even though dead, she still is, however, it is typical to refer to deceased persons in the past tense.
  •  Done. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• She completed her secondary education new paragraph has not yet told us the noun being replaced by the pronoun. Should be “Cotrim completed”. Subsequent paragraphs should also introduce the noun before replacing with a pronoun.
  •  Done. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Spot check, Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros 2016, does not mention Des Oiseaux School, 1952, or what she studied, and apparently these are two separate events. Estrela breve p 108 says she finished secondary school at the Colégio Des Oixeaux before age 17, i.e. in 1950, which is confirmed on the following page, saying she entered Sedes Sapientiae in 1950 after her graduation. Perhaps it also gives a description of what she studied and when she graduated? I note that Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros 2016 confirms she earned a degree from Sedes Sapientiae in Library science.
  •  Done, I think... ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Translations should be given for A Semana Passada a Limpo; Mulher, Confidencialmente; A Morte da Strip-Teaser
  •  Done. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I need time. As soon as I go on vacation, I'll focus on pending issues. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries. WP doesn't have a deadline. When you are ready just ping me. SusunW (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• link Helena Silveira
  •  Done. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Spot check, ref 8, I'm confused by Melo (1990) citation. Per worldcat, the book was edited by Maria Cláudia Rector, and the Brazilian repositorio shows a bunch of different authors. What was the name of the article Melo wrote for the book?
  •  Done. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Spot check ref 9. At what minute:second does the film confirm she acted in it, that it was made by Leone or that it was his first film and he was her student? (I see that it is discussed on page 201 of Estrela breve, but I don’t have access to the full page, perhaps it confirms those details?)
  • Here; I removed the part that says Leone was a student at Cotrim, as the newspaper does not make this information clear. But from the information I sought, these are films produced by USP students, including the media are stored on DVDs from the university's collection. Unfortunately they still haven't made it available on YouTube, as they did with some movies. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Link University of São Paulo
• Spot check, Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros 2016 says she entered USP in 1963, but not when she graduated. Gouvêa, (2010) on p 142 says she started in 1963 and on p 144 that she became a docent at the Escola de comunicações e arts in 1967 after she graduated.) Need source for 1966 or change cite to Gouvêa 2010 and year to 1967.
• link Gilda de Mello e Souza
  •  Done. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Spot check ref #14 Gouvêa (2009) confirms cancer, #12 confirms PhD advisor and topic and premature death.

Poetic journey

• Spot check #15, close paraphrasing With her work marked by cultured, aristocratic, and sober language, she resorted to symbols and metaphors expressing herself with remarkable economy of words source: "Her language, cultured, sober and aristocratic, uses symbols and metaphors with surprising economy of words". Can you rephrase?
  • SusunW Sorry, but I didn't understand that part. The sentence seems to me consistent with what is in the source. What do you suggest needs to be changed? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry I was unclear. It's a bit closely paraphrased and would be better either quoted directly or rewritten. SusunW (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

SusunW I think now is done. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That works. SusunW (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• From 1956 until 1970, she released six more works, among them does the book flap actually say she produced six other works? Gouvêa (2010), p 142 lists all 7 works if it does not.
  • According to information I sought from a librarian, there were seven. She pointed me to the page in Gouvêa's book (2011) that cites the works. I added the references in the article. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• link Prêmio Jabuti, translate Governador do Estado, and correct spelling of District. Citation should be to a secondary source, not a primary one. Gouvêa (2010), p 142 confirms the awards.
• In partnership with José Arthur Giannotti is cited to Goldmann. He confirms she translated his work? I did find a secondary source, from 1968 which confirms that they translated it and would be better than a primary source per our MOS.
  •  Done. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• her son Marco Giannotti threw me for a loop, he comes out of no where. She married? She had a child? Do we have any more information on this? (We do. Just noted in Milanesi, p 148, she was the wife of José Arthur Giannotti, which is confirmed here.)
  •  Done. I removed Marco Giannotti since I was unable to confirm his name in the 1984 book organization. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Influences & Critical reception

• Spot check CEL, "com 'Inventos', começou nova epoca da poesia em mim. Deixel de me var, de mi mostrar, procurando dar nova faceta de minha poesia…" Verified.
• From the epigraphs of her first two books is cited to her own work. We cannot deduce who or what her influences were. Need a secondary source to state it. O Estado de S. Paulo, (1969) confirms Rilke.
  • The cited excerpt has as a secondary source Gouvêa 2011, p. 130-131. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Spot check ref #32, confirmed data, no close paraphrasing.
• Spot check ref #34, all good. (Note, Leal says other influences were Hegel and Baudelaire. p 154 and a whole bunch more Brazilians 154-155)
• Spot check ref #38, all good.

Teaching

• Milanesi (2010) does say he had her as a teacher in 1968 in the newly founded faculty, but I don't see any of the rest of the paragraph confirmed there. "Morte de Lupe Cotrim" (1970) says she became a professor in the School of Cultural Communications in 1967. Xavier p. 135 also says 1967. Can we clarify the year?
• When did she become chair of Aesthetics?
  • Hello, SusunW. I think these two points are just missing, correct? ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  A.WagnerC not sure I'm following the question. If you are saying you cannot find a source to clarify the second date that's fine. But we have 2 sources saying she became a professor in 1967 and that date should be added. I haven't verified your answers to any of the information you have completed, as I will do that once you are finished, so as not to have to check it numerous times.

  • Note in the paragraph you now have it says "Initially, Lupe declined the invitation, stating that he did not know enough about Philosophy to take on a university class". Philosophy should not be capitalized and I think you mean she did not know. SusunW (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  SusunW Sorry, actually what I wanted to ask is if there are only these two points left. A.WagnerC(alt) (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  I [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1ria_Discuss%C3%A3o:Lilian_Viana#Ainda_sobre_Lupe_Cotrim found. I will add it soon. A.WagnerC(alt) (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  I honestly cannot answer that. When you are finished, ping me and I will go through them one by one and clarify what if anything is still outstanding. SusunW (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Spot check ref #40, all good.

Thank you for your work on her A.WagnerC. I enjoyed learning about her. For the record, I review files just like I was going to prepare it myself, so if something occurs to me, I note it. Doesn't mean it won't pass if you don't agree. I look forward to collaborating with you. Please speak freely, if you think I am off base, I'm glad to discuss anything. Also please ping me. My real life is very crazy right now. SusunW (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Status query

SusunW, A.WagnerC, where does this review stand? As far as I can see, the article hasn't been edited for about eight weeks, since the most recent post to this page, and A.WagnerC hasn't made any Wikipedia edits for about six weeks. Perhaps this should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

SunsunW BlueMoonset I will continue this month. My work has shortened the days. but I haven't given up yet. I just need more time. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with giving you the time you need. Just ping me when you are ready A.WagnerC SusunW (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@SusanW @A.WagnerC @BlueMoonset this hasn't made any progress in two months. I'm going to close this. When it's ready to be looked at again, please make a new nomination. RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

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:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.