Talk:Elisabeth Geleerd/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Urve (talk · contribs) 08:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this soon :), Urve (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Looking forward to it :) Vaticidalprophet 08:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Version reviewed. Images have good fair/free use rationales and are relevant. Prose is of an excellent quality, MOS is fine, no copying or original research seen, references are high quality. My main comments are about depth of coverage, but I largely don't think these are a barrier to GA status if they're not addressed. That's all I really have. A beautiful article - and so surprising we are only now representing her work on Wikipedia. I dislike Legobot's notifications when something is put on hold, so I will ping you,, to say this is on hold. If you don't wish to address most of these now, or disagree with anything, just give a response as to why - the only thing I can honestly say is a hindrance to GA status is the bit about reference 8 and whether it is accurate. Otherwise, the comments above show this is close to comprehensive, and it is certainly broad in coverage. Urve (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do sources discuss her mother in more detail? It would be interesting to know whether she worked at all; the details about her illness are sad, and I wonder whether there is anything more to say about her life other than she died ill. It humanizes us to say what we accomplished, if there's any sources, right?
 * Unfortunately, this is all I've been able to get. It's possible there's more in sources outside what I can access, but even the less accessible sources (e.g. someone had a photobook on 20th century psychoanalysts for horrifying-academic-publishing-prices, but even then what I could access of it didn't seem to have anything not given in other sources) don't seem to delve much into the details of her family and especially her mother. Vaticidalprophet 03:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reference 15 seems incorrect. It should be something like — the name of Christine Olden is from a related article in the sidebar, and I don't think cite web is appropriate.
 * Fixed. Vaticidalprophet 03:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Tartakoff reference has some information that is not used in the article. Do you think it is due? It seems to be an edge case – they were friends, and the details may be a bit much for her biography – but it's possible that it's worth including. For instance, it's said that she cared not only for "French war refugees", but also those from the Low Countries, and that this was during The Blitz of London. Also, while true that Nazi occupation resulted in "severing her remaining ties to her home country", Tartakoff takes it a step further and says she could not return. Also, she was the director of the Southard Clinic's psychotherapy program. Your call as to this kind of detail, of course, but my first impression is that if we can say more about important women, we should.
 * It's definitely complicated. The fact it's both a heavily used source and something a harder-nosed editor could argue insufficiently independent (given the connection) has mostly led me to err on the side of not going in too deep, to avoid accusations of overly dependent/biased sourcing. There are pretty good arguments for either addition or remaining, and plausibly good ones for subtraction of a bit of the detail there in the first place. The Southard thing is probably worth a mention somewhere, I'll see where it slots in. Vaticidalprophet 03:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a link to social alienation in "feeling a stranger in her own home"? I recall there was a specific term for this for Nazi-allied or -invaded countries, but can't remember it, or perhaps we don't yet have an article on it. Your choice.
 * Added. Would be useful to see if there's a more specific article, but I couldn't find one either. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what "on a spectrum with children considered schizophrenic" means. I skimmed the paper (reference 8) and am a bit concerned. It does not talk about neurodivergence, which is understandable as the paper is old, but is this not an anachronism? - that term only came into being recently. I'm also worried that it's inaccurate, since my understanding of neurodivergence is that it does not include things like psychosis anyway. But the 'spectrum' thing, if that is referring to schizotypal personality disorder, then I am not seeing that (or schizotypal) in the paper either. Am I missing something? I think the paper is great, but the summary of it here is not what I'm seeing in the text.
 * This is definitely a complex one. I've erred towards a more modern description to try conceptualize it better for 21st century readers (and in particular I've used 'neurodivergent'-in-anachronistic-contexts in a few other articles without issue), but there are good arguments on either end. I've been dwelling for a while on this comment, and I'll probably loop back around to it to try figure out the ideal phrasing. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a more accurate summary of the above would be something like, In 1946, Geleerd published a paper on children with behavioral issues, who she considered to be likely to develop schizophrenia, saying that the behavioral issues were themselves signs of psychosis. She argued that the use of psychoanalysis would potentially help this population, saying that it "may have favorably influenced the course" for those who received it.
 * I don't see this paper referenced in other sources, so I wonder why you selected it. (This is an honest curiosity, not a judgement or criticism.) There are several other interesting articles she wrote, like the following, that could also potentially be mentioned. What do you think?
 * You don't need to amend anything for this, but it does annoy me when a woman's work is compared to her appearance, as Thompson does. Oh well.
 * I wonder if reference 4 is more accurately translated as "Women Psychoanalysts in Austria" -- Psychoanalytikerinnen has the female ending -in, so I believe it's only about women. But I don't know best practices for translation.
 * I missed that! Have tweaked it. Not sure myself whether it's best translated as 'psychoanalysts' or 'women psychoanalysts', but erring on the side of it for now. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to say more about the what her husband did, beyond just being a psychoanalyst, the following may be helpful (but also probably undue, since it doesn't discuss Geleerd at all). He married Geleerd after his first wife died; he was an editor for The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child; wrote about the causes of antisemitism.
 * Probably undue, yeah. Loewenstein's article could probably do with some expansion itself (it's not far past stub size, length-wise), so might be worth looking at that... <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does the quote "forcefully and capably" come from? Possibly enter it at the end of the sentence, to dot our i's and cross our t's.
 * Have duplicated the Her Father's Daughter ref a couple sentences down to account for the quote, as it was sourced from the same place. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to this so quickly! I'll pick the low-hanging fruit soon and come back with thoughts on some of the more complicated points. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 11:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

, I've changed the questioned sentence to your preferred wording for now (I still have mixed thoughts on it, but I think it's reasonable), and I've addressed the other points you've raised. What are your thoughts? <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC) The main problem I have with the original text is the use of words like schizotypal and spectrum. They may very well be true* to a modern reader, but that's a non-obvious interpretation of the article, so I'm worried that it can be seen as original research. (*: I don't think schizotypal is an accurate description.) If you end up changing it back, then that's fine, but I would suggest only replacing my text with things like neurodivergence.
 * Thanks. I had the article watchlisted and none of the edits from the DYK feature are troubling to me. Two comments:
 * I did not want to say that Tartakoff is not an independent source, because for me it doesn't matter. (This is what I hinted at by saying they were friends.) But I understand if we have to omit information because, while it's probably all accurate, the proximity to the subject poses some questions. This is especially the case if you take this article for further review where such "problems" are complained about for the sake of complaining.
 * If you have had no issues with calling psychotic behavior (or behavioral issues) neurodivergent in other articles, then I suppose it's fine (though I'd disagree) - consensus and all. While I think anachronisms in general can hinder our understanding of a subject by obfuscating how it was actually treated at the time, they are also helpful in orienting ourselves, so of course it's a judgement call, and you know better than me about this person and her work.
 * Just to be clear, about the GA criteria: clear prose, MOS compliance, verifiable with no copyvio, close paraphrasing, or original research, broad, neutral, stable, images are great and compliant with policy.
 * Congratulations, I will be passing this momentarily. Urve (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)