Talk:Zdeňka Wiedermannová-Motyčková/GA1

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

Reviewer: Filelakeshoe (talk · contribs) 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

This is an interesting and well-written article. Going through the

• Drnovská (2012), a batchelors thesis.
• Kálesová (2006), a masters thesis.
• Muchová (2010), a masters thesis.
• Stumpfová (2018), a batchelors thesis.
• Vlčková (2016), a masters thesis.

As per

I already read through the article twice and fixed some incidental errors, mostly changing inflected forms of Czech words to their base form (e.g. Heczková 2009 writes "v Naší době" because the preposition "v" requires the locative case but the base form is "Naše doba".) There were also a couple of text formatting errors stemming from the letter ž appearing as ţ in one of the references.

I am going to put this on hold now, once we have resolved the referencing issue I will do a more thorough source and MOS review. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment about using theses (I got pinged off-wiki); the pertinent paragraph from

WP:SCHOLARSHIP, in my view, is the one starting "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate....", which means that papers that have had an obvious peer review that cite basic facts that are an extension or clarification of what's being cited elsewhere may be suitable. For example, when rescuing Ika Hügel-Marshall from AfD, I used papers from JSTOR as a starting point; these were by and large replaced by her (commercially published) autobiography when the article was put up for a GA review, but we were fortunate there that the subject became notable during the late 20th / early 21st century, so it was practical. Obviously, we should defer to secondary sources if they exist but for a late 19th / early 20th century figure, this may be hard to impossible; it really depends on what is being cited. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Ritchie333, even if I didn't ping you, glad to know someone is watching :) filelakeshoe The best reliable sources for women's history come out of women's study programs and period newspapers, since women are not as a rule part of traditional academic instruction. History teaches about war, power, and politicians, all closed to women of her period, so she is unlikely to have been a subject included in a textbook or article prepared before the advent of women's studies. Typically, modern articles which focus on historic women figures give very trivial information and not substantive information, thus, far better to rely on scholarship. Weighing the actual works, and not some generalized statement becomes critical. Drnovská was supervised and peer reviewed;[1] Kálesová was supervised and peer reviewed;[2] Muchová was supervised and peer reviewed;[3] Stumpfová was supervised and peer reviewed;[4][5][6] and while I cannot locate a peer review for Vlčková her work was supervised and accepted.agenda:help&start=74 This appears to be a far higher standard than a web citation or newspaper article might be, but should you still have concerns, please advise. SusunW (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: thanks for posting the peer reviews, that alleviates my concerns considerably - I was just cautious about most of this being cited from someone's bachelor thesis. I have started reviewing the citations. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely on-topic, but sort of, are you a fluent Czech speaker? I have an arsenal of folks I go to to help with the whole noun conjugation issue, as I find it truly baffling. (Also makes searching for stuff really hard :) and reading a map virtually impossible.) Would love to have known who to have review this one for those kinds of things before I nominated it, but short of asking my friend who lives in a tiny village near Prague, I didn't have any contacts to ask for help. SusunW (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

filelakeshoe, Thanks for picking up this one to review. I think I have addressed your concerns to this point, but if not, please advise. SusunW (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm competent enough at Czech and Slovak so feel free ping me with those kinds of queries in future. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is a really appreciated offer. I am sure I will find a need to take you up on it. SusunW (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

• a magazine publishing developments in the international women's movement - I would suggest "publishing articles on developments..."  Done SusunW (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Progressive Organization of Women in Moravia needs a "the" before it.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• in other parts of the area known as Czech lands - it's the Czech lands, and wouldn't just "in other parts of the Czech lands" suffice?  Done SusunW (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

• No need to repeat her full name in "other names", it's already at the top.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

• I'm only learning now about her middle name "Marie", which should probably be in the lede and in the infobox under "born".

Added it to the infobox, but not to the article title, which is her common name.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would put commas after "Božena" and "Růžena".

Not how lists are done in English (or maybe that's just American English, because I know that British punctuation differs widely). If there is information separated by commas in a list, then the punctuation marks offsetting the parts of the list are semi-colons. SusunW (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Though raised in a progressive family, her Catholic training initially ingrained... - dangling participle. Suggest "Though she was raised".  Done SusunW (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching

• she became notable for a public protest about women's pay - avoid describing people as "notable". Just say what happened.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The English translation of "Ženská revue" should be moved a couple of paras up to the first mention of the term.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights activism

• the larger cooperation of women in Czech lands - the Czech lands.  Done SusunW (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• She, along with Františka Plamínková and Karla Máchová [cs], both teachers from Bohemia, became... wouldn't "Along with.... she became..." be easier to read?

Okay, if I add she became one of the, as otherwise it doesn't make much sense. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• be drafted by all women's groups in the country - "the country" is muy confusing terminology for this land in this era, are we talking Moravia, the Czech lands, Austria or Austria-Hungary?

Yes, I see that as you now point it out, but having just said Czech lands, mayhaps the best way to phrase it is all Czech women's groups? If that works then  Done SusunW (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suffering from illness could do with a comma after it I think  Done SusunW (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

• died on 16 October 1915 in Brno[44] put the refs after commas or periods wherever possible. her work to establish the first girls' gymnasium in Moravia probably needs a comma after.  Done SusunW (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Real Gymnasium" should be two words, or as one word in italics as a foreign term. It's also spelled incorrectly.  Done SusunW (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent with apostrophes, the article text says "Girls' Real Gymnasium" and the pic caption "Girl's" (I think the former is preferable).  Done SusunW (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Early life

• I can't access the source "Vrbka (1940)", all the PDF links are dead.

That's weird, usually it is me unable to access stuff because Mexico is blocked. It takes a really, really long time for them to load, but I can access them. Try this p 18 or going to chapter III from here. SusunW (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That first link worked, thanks! Might be worth updating the link in the ref. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you could access it. I changed the link for the chapter in the article. Technology is not my strong suit. Research and writing I am fairly proficient at, coding stuff, not at all. :) SusunW (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching

• Both Heczková p207 and Kálesová p73 mention that she worked in Holešov before Fryšták (or was it Fryštát? see below!), might be worth adding.  Done SusunW (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The above two sources are in conflict about that - Kálesová says Fryšták (Zlín region) and Heczková says Fryštát (now part of Karviná). I suppose the second source is probably more reliable in the absence of others. Okay, changed to Fryštát  Done SusunW (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• but left for Prague after a break up with her fiancé. She made the acquaintance in 1895 of a Catholic priest and academic, Antonín Podlaha [cs], who helped her through her depression and a suicide attempt. this isn't quite what the source says. The source says she was in Prague with her fiancé, who left her, she tried to kill herself, then she *remained* in Prague for a while after the breakup in 1895 and met A. Podlaha, who her family didn't approve of, and then she moved to Moravské Budějovice. The stuff about Podlaha "helping her through depression" isn't stated in that source. Reworded section  Done SusunW (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SusunW: on second thoughts, I might axe the "of whom her family did not approve" from that - it's perhaps not stated that strongly in the source - "Rodina Wiedermannové s evangelickými tradicemi a aktivním protiklerikálním postojem však nebyla s její pražskou známostí příliš spokojena" = "however, the Weidermann family with their evangelical traditions and anti-clerical point of view were not overly satisfied with her courtship in Prague". Point is they weren't satisfied because of the religious aspect, which is already clear enough from the next sentence in the article. I was trying to hurriedly summarise it above and probably didn't do it justice :) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)  Done SusunW (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Heczková p202 and Kálesová p74 once again disagree about geography, this time about where "Světlá" school is. Heczková says Velké Meziříčí and Kálesová says Valašské Meziříčí, and Heczková seems to be right. I think this is their website, it mentions their roots in the women's movement on the history page.  Done SusunW (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As a Catholic, he was unable to divorce his wife - the source actually says "because he was divorced, the consistory didn't allow him to remarry". Boumová also says he "was divorced and wasn't allowed to marry a second time". I would
  WP:STICKTOSOURCE here. Reworded  Done SusunW (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

All this confusion with towns points exactly to why a "native" speaker is needed for place names, etc. I can generally get the meat of the content, but determining if it was a town ending in T or K or if that was a typo, or if it is just a conjugation makes it truly difficult. I am honestly appreciative of your help, as it is doubtful I would have ever figured out the nuances with the source conflicts. SusunW (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Womens rights

• Wiedermannová-Motyčková became a noted lecturer on women's issues, giving over a hundred presentations throughout the course of her career - might be worth specifying that this is in Brno now and not Olomouc (the source says she became popular "among the public of Brno" for her 100+ lectures)  Done SusunW (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• By the end of that year, 26 regional women's organizations had been formed - "26 organizations" is nowhere in the source. The source mentions Tišnov, Prostějov, Vyškov and Přerov as regional orgs that opened throughout 1910, and notes that the Vyškov one was opened on June 26 in a footnote (is that where the 26 came from?). Suggest vagueifying to "further regional organizations opened throughout 1910" or something.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It published speeches from congresses - I may not be familiar with this sense of the word "congress" but I understand the Czech "manifestační projevy" in that source to refer to speeches made at demonstrations and rallies.

Women's conferences are often referred to as congresses. But, have changed it to say rallies and demonstrations based on your understanding. SusunW (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Another stupid little thing By 1911, women won the right to organize politically - I feel like that should be either "by 1911, women had won" or "in 1911, women won..."  Done SusunW (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wiedermannová-Motyčková's sister, Ludmila - I'd put her full name here as it's the first mention, Ludmila Konečná.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The ref "Feinberg 2006" has a typo, Czechoslovokia should be Czechoslovakia  Done SusunW (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• little thing, the "electoral reform in 1913" ref should say pp35-36 and the "supreme imperial court that fall" one pp47-48.  Done SusunW (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

• Ženská revue was continued until 1920 with funding and editing provided by Ludmila - not just by Ludmila K, the source mentions three other names too: Ludmila Zatloukalová-Coufalová, Božena Wiedermannová and Anna Tollnerová. Maybe just add "and others" or something.

I added them all, as Coufalová has a full article in Czech and Božena was another of her sisters. Seemed silly at that point to leave out one name :)  Done SusunW (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

• I think all points have been addressed and the article satisfies the GA criteria. The GA nomination has passed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

filelakeshoe. It was a pleasure to work with you and make your acquaintance. I always appreciate a thorough review which improves the article and I thank you so much for your help in clarifying things in her article. SusunW (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]