Talk:Gabriele Rollnik

GA nomination?
, this article looks fairly complete—would you be interested in nominating it for Good Article status in the October Women in Green drive? Or are there other parts of this article that remain to be covered? czar 06:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * To be honest, my memory isn't that good.  I don't think I've looked at it for four years, and if other folks have cleared out any residual typoes in that time, that's good.   I'll take another look and see if I spot any showstopper issues with it, four years on: but assuming I don't I am happy for it to be nominated for whatever.


 * As far as the Good Article process is concerned, I never studied it in great depth.  From my shamelessly superficial appreciation of it, it is a check-list based process whereby some of the criteria are no-brainers, some are valid, and some have absolutely no bearing whatever on what consitutes a good article.   Which simply demonstrates that we all have our own idea on what makes a good article.   Also, having earned my living as an accountant/auditor for a number of years, I have a deeply ingrained conviction that encouraging people to mark their own homework is a terrible idea.   Wikipedia is stuffed full of the evidence for that.   But I think some of the articles I wrote (or started) have made it to good article status over the years, and if you (or anyone else reading this) believe this one might cut the mustard in question, (except I believe they're running out of mustard even in Dijon this year:  the world really has gone mad!) I am perfectly happy for someone to give it a shot.


 * Thank you for the thought. Be well. Charles01 (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I will be interested to know what you think on your re-read. The operative part of the Good Article criteria is "breadth": whether there are major aspects of her life/career that are currently not covered by the article. The lede would also need to be expanded but I could potentially help with that. The rest of the criteria are mostly Manual of Style stuff.
 * I wouldn't read too much into the Good Article status as a marker of quality but I think it's useful to recognize work that meets an encyclopedia-wide standard of breadth and the editors that write it. :) czar  05:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * On my re-read, I changed a date.  No source for the change beyond a change in wiki-de, so presumably wiki-de got it from somewhere offline or behind a paywall.   Or chose a better set of search terms.   But it didn't feel so contentious for all that.   No futher changes from me on the near horizon.   Though I find most of my best thoughts (and some of my worst) take place while I'm asleep, so I reserve the right to come back one day and do something else before breakfast.   On major aspects of Gabriele Rollnik's life/career, we are, as ever, prisoners of our sources.   She may have done lots of wonderful or terrible or both things that will never become public, and probably never should.   I guess many of us have.   On "good Article status as a marker of quality" I take and broadly agree with your point, and majoring on breadth looks goood to me.   But of course it's in the eye of the beholder/reader/writer; and we will all make our own disparate judgements through the prisms of our own experiences, education and social contexts.   Over time, the communications revolutions of our own generation are congealing those personal prisms of underlying mainly unacknowledged base assumptions into fewer more simplistic and less disparate blocks of shared prejudice.   Whether that's a good or a bad thing ... I guess maybe that's in the eye of the beholder too.   I know what I think, but then I grew up through the backwash of the (mainly western) European eighteenth century enlightenment:  it must look very different from the Asian side.  I'm drifitng out of scope again.   Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)