Talk:Józefa Joteyko/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one (nice to see you again, SusunW). Vanamonde (Talk) 03:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Looking forward to working through it with you. SusunW (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * All concerns addressed
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * All concerns addressed
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Spotchecks clear
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Spotchecks clear, earwig's tool clear
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Image licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All concerns addressed, passing shortly.
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Image licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All concerns addressed, passing shortly.
 * All concerns addressed, passing shortly.

Comments

 * Minor point; why does the text say "Kiev Gubernia", but link Kiev to "Kiev Oblast"?
 * Because I asked a Russian speaker who told me that was how it should be styled: SusunW (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, may not be actionable, but; when she's moving between Warsaw and Brusells; who is the family that is travelling with her? She isn't married; and her parents, surely, stayed in Warsaw?
 * Sorry, no idea, as the sources don't say. SusunW (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sentence beginning "In 1903, she became the director of the Casimir Laboratory..." is very long, and ambiguous as a result. I'd break it up into at least two, possibly three.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "The war interrupted her ability to continue with research and though she founded the Committee of Assistance for Poles Residing in Belgium, Joteyko left the country in 1915" This is a little confusing; the three parts of the sentence seem quite unrelated to each other.
 * I changed it to say "The war interrupted her ability to continue with research and she turned instead to humanitarian work. Though she founded the Committee of Assistance for Poles Residing in Belgium, Joteyko left the country in 1915." SusunW (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "exiled Poles involved in the independence movement" this needs a little more context. Why were poles exiled? What independence movement were they involved in?
 * Can I just state for the record, our search engine is atrocious? Not sure how I can concisely cover centuries of partitions in a wee explanation in this article without going seriously off track from her as the focus. :S Every time I write about a Polish woman, I am shocked that there is no article on the independence movement, seems bizarre to me. At any rate, the best article we have (and it's not good), about the migration of Poles is the one called Great Emigration so I have linked that to exiles. How I am supposed to explain that for 1 1/4 centuries Polish intellectuals had fought to maintain a sense of Polish identity from outside the country, that they had established underground schools to avoid attempts at Germanization and Russification, and instilled in the populous a nationalist desire for their independence? I'm going to have to come back to this one. Seems really, really complex to me, as most of our articles on Polish history deal with war and not the social impacts that the upheaval of war had on the people who lived there. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've given it a go. Let me know if the new version is still unclear. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you've done an admirable job, given the difficult. Thanks. Yes, it really surprises some people how bad our coverage really is outside the anglosphere. I work with south asian and south american topics, so I'm less surprised...still sad though. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "unusual living arrangements with long-term female partners" this is a bit fuzzy. First, you've only mentioned one partner (maybe the sources don't make the rest explicit; if so, that's fine). Second, was it the fact that her partners were female that was unusual, or were there other things? If this is accurate, might I suggest "as well as the fact that she lived with long-term female partners"?
 * Perhaps it helps to get background to read the discussion on the talk page and the "Note" in the article. It's complicated.
 * I added a line "The two women developed a special friendship of mutual admiration and respect for each other and would remain life-long companions." to clarify that Joteyko and Grzegorzewską were entwined.
 * The source says specifically "[Joteyko] "boleśnie odczuła tę decyzję, wpisując ją w panującą w polskich sferach naukowych niechęć do kobiet-uczonych. Nie można zapominać także o „nowoczesnych” i bezkompromisowo głoszonych poglądach Joteyko oraz o odbiegającym od „ogólnie przyjętej normy” życiu prywatnym bohaterki; jej długoletnia przyjaźń z Michaliną Stefanowską a później Marią Grzegorzewską budziła wiele podejrzeń i kontrowersji".([Joteyko] "she painfully felt this decision, attributing it to the Polish scientific community's dislike of women scholars. One should not forget about the "modern" and uncompromisingly proclaimed views of Joteyko and about the private life of the heroine deviating from the "generally accepted norm"; her many years of friendship with Michalina Stefanowska and later Maria Grzegorzewska aroused a lot of suspicion and controversy".) So, no, not just that she lived with women. I've used your wording. ✅ SusunW (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "At the time, there was no unified standard for school systems in Poland and the educational facilities that existed favored the upper classes." This is a bit fuzzy, also. "unified standard" for what?
 * I moved educational, i.e. unified educational standard... ✅ SusunW (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "so that no matter their financial situation, pupils could learn and society would benefit from their education and skill" this reads a little like soapboxing. Does the source say this in its own voice, or is it attributing the sentiment to Joteyko?
 * Very definitely attributing it to Joteyko. "According to Józefa Joteyko...", "According to her...", "Her views...", "She was in favor...", "In her opinion". Changed it to say "In her opinion, no matter their financial situation, pupils should be able to learn so that society would benefit from their education and skill." ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Entirely optional comment; some of the stuff under "Career" may, in the long term, be better in a separate section about her views; it's fine for GA, though.
 * My opinion, which counts for nothing, but that always seems weird to me. It's like tacking "personal life" on to the bottom of an article, as if their personal stuff didn't impact their career. Separating out her views, from the events that formed them is the same type of compartmentalization to my mind. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "but illness curtailed her further involvement in research" this, in the lead, doesn't seem to be substantiated in the body....
 * Confused by this, sorry. The first sentence in the "Death and legacy" section says she developed a heart condition in the 1920s that became serious in 1927. Not sure I understand how that doesn't tie to illness which forced her to stop working? SusunW (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you make sure all non-English sources mention what language they are in?
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the review. I appreciate your picking this one up. I think I have addressed all your points, but some of them I am not sure are resolvable. Please let me know if you need me to do anything further. SusunW (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)