Talk:Ida Mett/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 20:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article created as part of the Women in Green Editathon taking place in June 2023. I look forward to reviewing it. simongraham (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 92% of authorship is by Grnrchst. It is currently assessed as a B class article.


 * The text is clear and comprehensive.
 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
 * The article is of reasonable length, with 1,020 words of readable prose.
 * The lead is relatively short at 86 words.
 * Text seems to be neutral.
 * There seem no obvious grammar or spelling errors.
 * The article relies on a range of sources.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector states copyright violation is unlikely, with a score of 9.1%. The author proactively addresses the question of whether Nick Heath is close phrasing.
 * All accessible sources seem live.
 * Is it possible to reconcile "Before she was able to complete her studies, in 1924, she was arrested on charges of anti-Soviet agitation and deported from Russia" and "she was never able to practise as a doctor, as her qualifications went unrecognised by the new French Republic." What qualification did she obtain? Where and when?
 * Checked sources and the detail about her being unable to complete her studies appears to be a holdover from the removed Heath 2006 source. I checked further and again, this appears to be another case of citogenesis from French Wikipedia, so I removed it. As for what her qualifications were, I'm not sure, neither Boulouque 2001 or Heath 2021 mention that, they just say her qualifications weren't recognised by the French government. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. simongraham (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox states she was active from 1917. Can you provide referenced evidence of activity between 1917 and 1924?
 * Changed to say 1924. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Platformism" is mentioned in the lead and infobox but not in the main body. Please add referenced to the main text.
 * The Platform was the founding document of platformism, and it's linked to there. How should I clarify? --Grnrchst (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably something along the lines of that statement (The Platform was the founding document of platformism) would be sufficient (with credible references).
 * Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Marc Lazarévitch (b. 1931)" is mentioned in the infobox but not in the main body. Please add referenced to the main text.
 * Referenced. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Mention is made that "Mett also served as a key primary source for biographies on Nestor Makhno by Michael Malet, Victor Peters, and Alexandre Skirda." and many references are to biographies of Nestor Makhno (e.g. Darch, 2020, Malet, 1982, Patterson, 2020, Peters, 1970, and Skirda, 2004). How much is the reliance on these sources because there is a paucity of biography for Mett herself? Are there any biographies of her published?
 * The biographies I cited that were focused on Mett were by Boulouque and Heath, which were relatively short. There's other short biographies in the further reading, but I didn't cite those, for various reasons. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this article will inspire new biographers. simongraham (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Simongraham: I'll certainly be keeping on eye out for them. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommend adding translations for the non-English titles, e.g.
 * The English translation for Boulouque, 2001
 * Added. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The original language title for Skirda, 2002
 * How? I'm not seeing a field for original titles in the cite book template. As I'm using the English source, I'm not sure about using the trans-title field either. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. simongraham (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Spot checks of Peters, 1970, and Shubin, 2010, confirm that references mention Mett.
 * The images seem appropriate and relevant.
 * All three images require a US PD tag, but otherwise seem to have appropriate licenses.
 * There is no reference in the main body to her birth day.
 * Added a reference. I can also confirm this date through archival records. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The body states that she was born in a "predominantly Jewish town" but does not explicitly mention that she was Jewish, which is stated in the infobox.
 * Added a more explicit mention later on, when she was expelled from Delo Truda specifically for her Jewish religious practices. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work so far. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed your main points. I'll wait on your responses. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Almost there. simongraham (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it now? Anything else that I can look at? --Grnrchst (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks excellent. I will start my assessment. simongraham (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass  simongraham (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)