Talk:Ginetta Sagan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Do we know what she studied at the Sorbonne?
 * This source implies it's child development, but I'm not quite certain enough to add it. Couldn't find another source.
 * Is the Aurora Foundation notable enough for a red link?
 * It's hard to be sure, but my guess is no. The problem is that Aurora Illinois also has an Aurora Foundation that crops up often in the news. But searching for "Aurora Foundation Ginetta Sagan" turns up very little.
 * When and how did she die?
 * Added.
 * She was alive for the first six years of distribution of the AI award in her name. Do we know if she helped choose the winners during that time period?
 * Hard to be sure, but most references seem to talk about AI "honoring" her with this rather than her being actively involved. I can't find verification one way or another.
 * I don't know if you can see this, but it's Joan Baez's memoir, which details some of her relationship with Sagan, starting on p. 179. There might be some tidbits there that would be interesting to include here, although Baez is obviously a primary source regarding the relationship between the two.
 * Good find. I've love to include the bit about their trip to Auschwitz, but I can't see enough of the pages around it to figure out even what decade it happened in. For now I've settled for a somewhat sappy quote, but the whole description is a bit sappy. I'm also intrigued by her involvement in Washington DC concert by Baez during the Carter administration, but again, can't see enough of the context. I might see if my local library has this one, it looks like Sagan has a surprisingly big chunk of it. Can't make any promises about how fast that might happen, though; I'm disabled, so reliant on kind family members to bring me books. =)
 * I found a brief mention in the Baez book of Sagan writing a book of her own. Do you know if anything was ever published? There is some interesting stuff to be found in a WorldCat search.
 * My guess is that it wasn't--at least, I haven't seen a mention anywhere. The North Vietnam report was put out by the Aurora Foundation; it's mentioned in the current article that Sagan worked on this issue, though not details of that particular report. I put a link to her archival papers under external links.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See comments above in prose section, which actually relate mostly to this section.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few minor questions above. None of them are really deal-breakers with regard to GA status, but I think it would improve the article's broadness to have some or all of them answered. Let me know if you have any questions, placing the article on hold for now, Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, and thanks for reviewing. I've got a potentially busy weekend ahead, but I'll look at these on Monday if not before. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, was able to get to this tonight after all. I appreciate the read and the suggestions, and would be happy to discuss any of this further; this was the rush-job version! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good to me, so I'm passing the article to GA status. I think additional information from the Baez book would be cool, but from the section of it that I could see, there was nothing that would add to the "broadness" of this article, merely to the "comprehensiveness", which is a FA criteria. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A few minor questions above. None of them are really deal-breakers with regard to GA status, but I think it would improve the article's broadness to have some or all of them answered. Let me know if you have any questions, placing the article on hold for now, Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, and thanks for reviewing. I've got a potentially busy weekend ahead, but I'll look at these on Monday if not before. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, was able to get to this tonight after all. I appreciate the read and the suggestions, and would be happy to discuss any of this further; this was the rush-job version! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Allright, everything looks good to me, so I'm passing the article to GA status. I think additional information from the Baez book would be cool, but from the section of it that I could see, there was nothing that would add to the "broadness" of this article, merely to the "comprehensiveness", which is a FA criteria. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)