Talk:Umi Sardjono/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This looks like another excellent candidate from SusunW for Women in Green. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for picking her up . I look forward to working with you to improve it. SusunW (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * The article is of reasonable length, with 2,465 words of readable prose.
 * The lead looks of an appropriate length at 356 words.
 * 98.4% of authorship is by SusunW.
 * It is currently assessed as a B class article.
 * Suggest add a short description to the top of the article.
 * I have no idea how to do that? SusunW (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I did this right? I looked at another article and tried to use the same format. Honestly, I never, ever add templates unless I must. I am not a coder, I am a writer and researcher and my opinion, which counts for a hill of beans, is that I should avoid coding so as not to screw things up and leave it to experts. SusunW (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * The layout is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style, including a nice infobox.
 * Earwig gives a 27% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is unlikely. The most similar article is by Taewoo Kim in the Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies and is sourced in the document. The common text does not seem to be material.
 * There seem to be no duplicate or superfluous links.
 * The infobox image seems appropriate and relevant and has a free-use rationale that seems reasonable.
 * WP:AGF for the offline sources.
 * Spot check confirms McGregor 2012, McGregor & Rahayu 2023 and Wieringa 1993 are relevant and discuss the topic.
 * Confirmed the reference from Koalisi Perempuan, but cursorily as I do not speak Indonesian.
 * The link for Dower 1999, McGregor 2013, Rose 1975 and Wieringa 2002 point to individual pages within the Google books. Suggest removing this for at least those that have multiple citations.
 * The text seems generally clear and neutral, balancing different points of view, which I feel is critical for a political figure. It feels that different perspectives are being presented neutrally. However, I am concerned with the following sentences:
 * "The army claimed Gerwani members mutilated the genitals of the murdered officers and danced while nude over their corpses. Their false narrative, aimed at instilling a conservative regime and curtailing women's activism, was effective in turning public opinion against Gerwani members and had long-lasting effects on the reputations of former members."
 * I'm not sure what the issue is? It is very clear that it is now the accepted version of events, which should not require attribution to a single academic, i.e.
 * "...the army-controlled press published articles condemning not only the PKI but all affiliated and associated organizations, including Gerwani. The propaganda included a strong gendered dimension. The army alleged that members of Gerwani had mutilated the genitals of the men killed by the Movement and danced naked around the well into which the men's corpses were discarded. This falsified information served the purposes of the new army-dominated regime, which sought to install a conservative gender order and reject women's political activism. This led to enduring stigmas against former members of this organization, sometimes perpetuated by family members". (McGregor & Rahayu 2023, p. 388);
 * "In the days and weeks after the movement fizzled, army propagandists and their allies circulated a story that the six generals had been sexually assaulted…described in lurid detail how the members of Gerwani had danced naked around the generals, before castrating them with razor blades and gouging their eyes out with ice picks. … Apart from casting the Gerwani women as inhuman witches, the story powerfully evoked male anxieties about castration…represent[ing] an unacceptable threat to their patriarchal position and worldview. … Similar stores began to appear in places outside Jakarta…[claiming that] members of the organization had been instructed to 'sell' themselves to soldiers in order to obtain weapons for the PKI and having done so, to murder and castrate the men they had seduced. …The story was false. … The only possible conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that the army leadership deliberately concocted and disseminated the false story to impugn Gerwani and to incite violence against its members".Robinson p. 167;
 * "The after-effects of demonising of the left-wing women's organisation, Gerwani…as sadistic torturers of the generals…[with] such a lurid and demonstrably false story became part of the New Order political culture by symbolising the danger of politically strong and sexual women…The steady stream of propaganda about the fictitious sexual tortures of the generals served as a constant reminder of the dangers of assertive women".Yap p. 130
 * "Black propaganda campaigns disseminated false memories about PKI women through state-documentary films. … The state narrative labeled communist women as brutal, sadistic, and evil. Growing up with these state narratives, people were taught to think of Gerwani (an Indonesian women's organization) as responsible for the mutilation of the generals killed in the G30S coup attempt. It was only later that it became known that Gerwani was, in reality, a women's organization consisting of educated, politically conscious, middle-class women who had been active before the start of the war. Prior to realizing this, the word "Gerwani" used to engender feelings of fear and frightful images of communist women.Pitaloka & Dutta, p. 236
 * "…this manipulated historical record became a self-justifying historical narrative for the New Order regime, encouraging its cult and enforcing its orthodoxies. The demonisation of the “Gerwani” women through a false torture and mutilation story was central to army propaganda efforts to marginalise the PKI and justify severe repression. This process of falsifying the history of Indonesia in 1965 was directly and indirectly assisted by the Australians, British, and Americans while the Indonesian army conducted wholesale killings. The political outcome was applauded…"Henry pp 155-156


 * The second sentence is problematic to me as it makes a number of statements that require evidence. Is there evidence of the intent to instil a conservative regime and curtailing women's activism? Is there data on the public's attitude? Do we have evidence of what the long lasting-effects where, and how many suffered? Without evidence, I feel this may fail WP:VER. I suggest that this be rephrased in light of later statements on Anderson's work.
 * See above sourcing. I am confused, as there is no contradiction with Anderson, who said that the narrative of the government/army was false. He didn't negate that the information was fabricated. Instead he uncovered the propaganda and its use as a weapon to demonize the activists. Clearly there were mass killings, "500,000 to 1 million people were killed in Indonesia", "political prisoners reached over 20,000 people, with only 800 of them undergoing trial.Fanani; In Plantungan Camp alone, where the women prisoners were held, "there were approximately 500 female political prisoners".Janti I'm quite happy to make whatever changes you think are necessary to clarify text, but I am 100% sure based on sourcing that it is generally accepted and verifiable that the army's information was fabricated and that women (and others) were persecuted by their fake propaganda. SusunW (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the issue here is that I didn't include multiple sources all showing how bad the repression was, I added each source above and a note. If that isn't what you meant, please feel free to explain further and I will try. SusunW (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded pedantic. Thank you for all your work. That is very clear. The additional citations and the note really help. simongraham (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Some suggestions to improve the grammar and spelling:
 * Suggest removing "to" in "From 1945, Sardjono helped to establish women's organizations"
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest putting commas around the phrase "from 1959" in the lead.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding a comma after Sukisman in "she met another resistance fighter Sukisman, known as Sardjono in Javanese."
 * Sorry, there is already a comma there? SusunW (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding "the" in "to press for the passage of a marriage law".
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding a comma before "she also attended the WIDF council meeting in Berlin"
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding a comma after "At the 1954 Gerwis conference"
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding a comma after "During the 1960s, Gerwani membership increased"
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest rewording the sentence "At the 1954 Gerwis conference, the members decided to change the organization's name to Gerakan Wanita Indonesia(Indonesian Women's Movement, Gerwani) to reflect its goal of becoming a broad-based rights movement focused on national independence, defending peace, and assisting women and children. Sardjono was elected to head the newly named organization." to avoid the repeat of "organization".
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggest rephrasing "minimum age to marry at 18 for men and 15 for girls" to "a minimum age to marry of 18 for men and 15 for girls"
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work. I cannot see any major issues apart from my comment on WP:VER, just a few suggestions. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have addressed everything, but please feel free to continue the discussion on the suppression/false narrative about Gerwani activists if I have failed. I truly appreciate your help with the article.SusunW (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks great. Thank you. I will complete my assessment now. simongraham (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2024 (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;
 * 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) 23:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)