Talk:Lisa Kahn (poet)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 15:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this, although I am not an expert in the field. At first glance it looks okay, although short. Is there a reason for why there is no section with her publications? Edwininlondon (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking this on! I can try to include a publication list (at least of the poetry and edited volumes), but it would not include some of her scholarship. —Kusma (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Made an attempt at a publication list. Worldcat is currently broken, unfortunately, but I hope it is more or less complete. —Kusma (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. —Kusma (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Very nice!

Okay, that would be good. In the meantime here is my review:

Prose
While it seems a bit light on content, overall the prose is of good quality. A few comments:
 * As per MOS:SURNAME the lead should start with Liselott Margarete "Lisa" Kahn, née Kupfer (July 15, 1921 – July 3, 2013) was ... See for instance Edith Garrud
 * Done.
 * Perhaps a few more concepts in the lead could be linked. I'm thinking German studies for example.
 * Done.
 * The lead should say something more about her poetry
 * Done a little expansion; would you like to see more?
 * No, this is good.
 * Kahn was born Liselott Margarete Kupfer in --> no bold here and usually when the subject was born is mentioned here as well
 * Done.
 * entitled Versuch einer Sozialcharakterologie der dichterischen Gestalten des Naturalismus, "Attempt of a social characterology of the poetic entities of Naturalism --> I would drop the German, describe the topic rather than give the translation,and link Naturalism. Is Naturalism really with a capital?
 * Should be lowercase in English. I kind of like to give the original name (which is reliable) in addition to my own translation.
 * Jewish German refugee Robert L. Kahn (1923–1970) --> it is not common to add (1923–1970) mid-sentence. Is there a specific reason why it is here? I don;t think we need those years
 * I'll think about this a bit more. I think his age and relatively young death are relevant here, but perhaps this isn't the best way to put it.
 * Removed. We have his suicide soon after, and it isn't too surprising that they are of a similar age.
 * Jewish German refugee Robert L. Kahn --> if supported by the sources it would be good to add here that she changed her name to Lisa Kahn. Although I see that her PhD thesis uses Kupfer-Kahn.
 * I don't know when exactly she changed her name or why her thesis uses a double name.
 * They had two children: Peter G. Kahn (born 1953)[7] and Beatrice Margarete Kahn (born 1959) --> no need to give their names and birthyears. Err on the side of privacy, see WP:BLPNAME
 * We need Peter, as he contributed art to his mother's books. (And unlike his sister, he is no longer a BLP).
 * OK, this is good.
 * Robert Kahn became a US citizen --> see MOS:SAMESURNAME for when and how to use just Robert
 * Done.
 * She wrote poems in English and German. --> when did she start writing poetry?
 * I don't know. Anyway, I moved things around quite a bit.
 * After her first husband's suicide, she mainly wrote about suffering and death --> what were the topics before the suicide?
 * I don't know, but I wrote more about what she did later.
 * at least a dozen volumes --> how come this is not an exact number?
 * Found a claim of "eighteen" from 2004, which looks about right.
 * reviewer Glen E. Lich --> are there any reviews of the other works? ideally there is a bit of critical reception for each work mentioned. I spotted for instance that Duncan 1981 praises Reisegepack with "sensitivity and expertise"
 * Added a few more reviews.
 * University of Cincinnati professor of German, Jerry Glenn, called her --> I would move that explanation up to where Glenn is mentioned first
 * Done.

Media
The image used is meant to be a case of fair use. It seems ok, although the WP:NFCI criterion "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" is hard for me to judge. The reason "person is deceased" given here seems inadequate to me. Have their been attempts to contact for instance the Texas Southern University? If so, that should be recorded.

That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed review, lots of good points! I need to finish answering another GA review first, but I'll get to work on this soon. —Kusma (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For the image: As there is no copyright notice on the photo (I think there wasn't one on the page either, but it is no longer on issuuu) it is likely to be PD. I wasn't sure back when I uploaded it so claimed fair use just to be on the safe side. Her son died a few years ago, and I don't expect the university to have lots of pictures about faculty members from 30+ years ago (and still know their copyright status), so I haven't tried. —Kusma (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did ask people at WP:RX to verify the copyright status. —Kusma (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And I got some people on WP:DISCORD on the case too. Looking likely that the image is free, but I'll wait for someone to confirm. —Kusma (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The image has been replaced by one on Commons. —Kusma (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Edwininlondon: I think it's ready for another look. My apologies that there are so many changes; looks like I wasn't as well prepared as I had hoped. —Kusma (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise, and on top of that, I've seen far worse. All looks fine now except for the 1952/1953 PhD issue. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another reference also says 1953: (Wikipedia library link) so I will go back to that in both places. The German National library entry says something about appearing in 1952 but "dissertation of 24 February 1953" that doesn't fully make sense to me. Does that make sense @Edwininlondon? —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the way you have it now is good: in line with the usual gap of months between document published and actual defense of thesis, and supported by sources. I think it is ok to assume that "dissertation of 24 February 1953" refers to the thesis defense.

I now believe this article meets all the requirements for GA. Nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)