Talk:Hilda Hilst

Women in Green mini-review
From the request at WikiProject Women in Green/20-Minute Article Assessments. I'll make notes against each of the Good article criteria. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Well-written. 2. Verifiable with no original research. 3. Broad in its coverage and 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
 * "in the estate, where she would invite several artists and intellectuals to live in." is a bit clunky
 * "He struggled with Schizophrenia", "suffering with mental health," - might be challenged per WP:SUFFER. Wikilink to schizophrenia at the first instance (currently the link is at a later instance).
 * Consider rewording "She made the Sun House into a sort of artists' hub"
 * "impersonated a journalist to, unsuccessfully, meet Marlon Brando" - maybe something like "impersonated a journalist, in a failed attempt to meet Marlon Brando"?
 * "remained a constant fixture on the city's nightlife scene for several years" and "the bustling city life"" feel a bit informal.
 * Publications: the examples at WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY have the year in parentheses. Optionally, add some further publication details such as ISBNs.
 * It looks to me like the names of works are lacking some capital letters, but I haven't checked fully against Manual of Style/Titles of works and MOS:PEOPLANG.
 * Generally, I didn't find any major issues with the prose. Expect to get some improvement suggestions during a GA review, which may include a suggestion to combine short paragraphs.
 * Some statements need citations, e.g. The third para of Poetry, the last para of Theater and prose, and "Since 1995 her personal files have been in IEL-UNICAMP and are available to researchers worldwide."
 * Depending on the reviewer, you might be advised to remove citations from the lead. See MOS:LEADCITE.
 * Sources generally look high quality and appropriate. I haven't checked whether they support the text.
 * WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Is this the case for Teodoro, Ana Luiza Menezes Moura (2019)?
 * Check AGÊNCIA FAPESP and UMASÓMÚLTIPLAMATÉRIA against MOS:ALLCAPS.
 * Seems OK at face value, but I haven't read sources so can't give a proper assessment.
 * No issues.
 * I'm not entirely convinced by the rationale given for the use of File:Hilda Hilst's notes.png. Isn't there a level of "sufficiently creative authorship" that invalidates the Licensing? Also, if retained, I think the caption should be expanded as it's not clear to me why the image is included. (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Manual of Style/Captions).

Thanks for all your work on the article,. The main issue for me is the lack of citations for some of the statements. I think if you fix this and just run through the other points above, then the article should be in rasonable shape for a GA nomination. You might get some suggestions for restructuring the material; some reviewers have really helpful ideas about this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Tournesol.png Thanks for the review! Will work on those issues as soon as I'm able to. — Material  Works  12:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)