Jump to content

Talk:Palmire Dumont/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: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 04:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hi SusunW. Many thanks to you, Kusma, and ABF992 for this interesting article. I enjoyed my first read, and I've included some initial comments below. I will have a fuller set of comments for you within 25 hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking it up. We appreciate you taking a look at it and look forward to collaborating with you to improve it. SusunW (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I feel the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok folks. Putting this on hold. Pretty sure we can resolve any final issues within a week. Gotta take a look at the new lead, and I hope others do as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Looking good after a couple passes. One more read-through for me, but I anticipate finding very few issues.
    Final issues are below.
    All now resolved.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    MOS:LEAD issue mentioned below.
    Now resolved.
  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:
    A well-crafted reference section.
    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:
    Sources cited are high-quality. One issue (Note 2 and the portrait) is still up in the air below.
    All issues resolved
    C. It contains no original research:
    I'm construing the portrait issue as one of verifiability rather than OR.
    D. It contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:
    Earwig is clear and the few citations I've checked so far have been ok. Will do some random spotchecks before closing the review.
    I've completed the random spot checks and no copyvio or CLOP issues came up.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Covers the main aspects expected from a biography. Hits the main beats of Dumont's life per sources like Choquette 2016.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    There are some colorful tangents, which are kept brief enough.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    The few real viewpoints and bits of analysis are coming from the strongest sources.
  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 media such as images, video, or audio?
    A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Excellent illustrations (thanks Toulouse-Lautrec!). One question below.
    Question now answered
    B. Media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    One caption issue so far.
    Caption issue resolved.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or fail:
    All issues resolved. Congratulations to the nominators. A pleasure working with you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

GA criteria feedback

[edit]

I'll be placing a list of items that need to be addressed below. I may be wrong or misguided on some, so feel free to push back. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Overall[reply]

Just one tiny spelling correction, i.e. describe din. I fixed it. Otherwise fine, I think. SusunW (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many eyes make good work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Truth be told, I never heard it called that, until I was searching for an image to match her description. I live in a Spanish colonial city in Mexico and these balconies are everywhere in the old part of the city. Choquette calls it a Spanish balcony and immediately her description made me think of that. When I put in a search, to see if I could find an image, all the balconies that looked like this were in that category. Here we just call it a Spanish colonial balcony, so if we need to change the text, that isn't an issue. SusunW (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done. SusunW (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early career

  • It's a mystery. We have been unable to positively identify what work Choquette was referring to. As stated in the body, she said it might have been Dumont and the footnote says it sold in 2010. Kusma and I tried to find the sale. He found a potential sale, but we could not see any reference to Dumont in the Christie's blurb. I tried to verify what the descriptions were in the sources Christie's gave, but hit a brick wall. So I tried the RX, which so far has yielded nada. SusunW (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we play it safe: remove the footnote, and change the body prose to something like "Other evidence that Toulouse-Lautrec and Dumont became acquainted early in her time in Paris comes from a portrait he made in 1892, which scholar Leslie Coquette writes may depict Dumont." ?
      • I think that would work (but I am happy to hear other opinions). We haven't been able to find any evidence behind Choquette's claim yet, and we can still add it back in once we get more from WP:RX. (This is my guess for the image; as you see, there is no information linking this to Dumont on the Christie's page. So we definitely can't add this image as the evidence is very flimsy). —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, feel free to revert/tweak. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Souris

Lead

  • I think the main thing holding me back from a pass at this point is the need for an expanded lead. MOS:LEAD suggests that a two or three paragraph lead would suit an article of this size. The current lead does a good job of summarizing her legacy. Expansion could help it cover her early life and career and maybe give a bit more detail on the bars. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a first pass. Anyone else want to tweak it? SusunW (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new lead. I would love input, even if brief, from Kusma and ABF992. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can say a few words but I am generally quite happy to let SusunW edit as she thinks best in this article; my contribution was mostly some fact checking, some source hunting and then working on merging Susun's draft and ABF992's article. Anyway, in my view the lead effectively covers what it needs to cover, at least briefly. I am not totally convinced by the sentence "Her life is an underpinning to understanding of the social history of the development of lesbian Montmartre"; I think this isn't quite stated in the body should rather be merged into the following sentence about her businesses. People (even Leslie Choquette) seem to be not really interested in her as an example of a lesbian in 1890s Paris, but really look at her as an entrepreneur and how she and her bars and restaurants helped shape the LGBT nightlife of the time. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the lead as well. I think Choquette's article, especially her introductory paragraphs, definitely focuses on Dumont as someone who "was important in the social history of the development of lesbian Montmartre", so perhaps we could tweak the existing sentence in lead to something like "her work as an entrepreneur was instrumental in the development of the social history of lesbian Montmartre" putting the focus more on her entrepreneurship and what it accomplished than her life 'as an example of a lesbian' ABF992 (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made two attempts to improve this (one closer to SusunW's version, one closer to ABF992's suggestion), see my last two edits to the article. Please tweak further. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks fine. I appreciate everyone's work on it. SusunW (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check I randomly selected 8 citations (more, really, since many sfns are repeated): 3, 5, 9, 15, 20, 21, 47, and 51. Most looked great. A few issues/questions below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citation 5 (Stewart 1855, p. 128.) is used to support a definition for sous and a conversion to British pence. Is the conversion useful/accurate? Many readers will not find pence a useful comparison, and the conversion rate for 1855 may not match up with the time period covered in this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I find the comparison useful. We are talking about very small amounts of money and historical converters typically start with the major currency, i.e. Francs, Pounds Sterling, Dollars as opposed to sous, pence, pennies. If you look at the chart on page 299 and text page 303, exchange rates were "relatively stable" to at least the 1870s. SusunW (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our text says "She and Giguet were both discussed in the memoir Chez de Max (1918, At Max's) by Louis Delluc", which as far as I can tell is accurate. The book was clearly written by Delluc as per the French Bibliothèque catalogue, but Choquette describes it as a memoir, which typically is autobiographical, and says "De Max recalled...in his memoir". I cannot find an open access copy of the book anywhere (looked on world cat, gallica, BFN, archive.org) so it is impossible to determine whether Delluc was actually writing a biographical account, interviewing de Max, or simply facilitating de Max in writing his own autobiography. Open to suggestions on how we avoid OR but remain true to what Choquette says. SusunW (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose De Max have written his own memoir earlier, and Delluc may have written something like "De Max's memoir includes fond memories of the two." Hard to know for sure. I can't think of a way for Choquette to be accurate and our article language to be incorrect, so I'm fine with leaving it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final items

  • In §Death and legacy, "she helped propel Paris to a central position as a capital of entertainment" comes off a bit odd. As far as I know, Paris was already a capital of entertainment. The Choquette page cited focuses more on the establishment of Montmartre as a "raunchy entertainment capital". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-GA criteria feedback

[edit]

The items below do not need to be addressed in order to meet the GA criteria, but I recommend taking a look anyway.

  • The source equates the terms, but I don't speak French, so possibly the others can weigh in? SusunW (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not too well versed in French slang, but after looking at fr:gouine and wikt:gouine, I think equating the terms is appropriate. However, Choquette does not say that the terms were used to describe Dumont; she just thinks that the description in Davray's book (with Dumont as "Mme G.") hints at her being a lesbian because all those terms start with a G. My conclusion is we are better off without that footnote, so I have removed it. —Kusma (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like everything you have all done here, great work, thanks! ABF992 (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final items

  • some weird coding thing on WP. If you put two ' around the title it should italicize the whole title, but apparently if you put the language template within the double ' (which I cannot type on this page as it overrides and makes everything in italics) it overrides whatever else is there? Don't ask me about coding, WP technology is insane. But, I think I fixed it. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palmire_Dumont/GA1&oldid=1163879560"