Talk:Women's International Democratic Federation/GA2

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

Nominator: 14:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC) Hello! I'm going to go after this one as a part of the backlog drive. I imagine I'll have it done by the end of the weekend, if not sooner. Kimikel (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Verdict: Overall, this is a quality article; however, it needs a little work before the GA nomination can be approved. I'm going to put this on a 7-day hold to give you time to consider and implement the following suggestions: Kimikel (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * , hurricane Beryl is set to hit the Yucatan tomorrow morning, meaning I may or may not have internet service. I will try to answer these tomorrow. Appreciate you picking up the review. SusunW (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @SusunW in that case i hope you remain safe; please disregard the initial timeline and get to it whenever if at all possible. Kimikel (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like she won't land here until around 5 P.M. so I'll try to answer today. SusunW (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have answered everything except one point which I had a question on. Pressure is shifting, winds are starting to blow. Sprinkling but no real rain yet. Will be within 5-6 miles of us in a few hours, so no clue what happens then. SusunW (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @SusunW: I think I just misread that one sentence you had a question on. With all of the changes made, in my opinion, this is a Good Article. An experienced reviewer will verify my review at some point. Thank you for your quick and quality work, and I hope that you stay safe. Kimikel (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. It was a pleasure working with you. We're prepared, should be safe, but with weather one never really knows. SusunW (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fritzmann2002 is this review ready to be closed? Kimikel (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , the only thing unanswered from my end is putting the references for the notes section in the same style as the refs for the rest of the article. As soon as that is taken care of, feel free to promote the article. It looks great! An excellent contribution to the encyclopedia. Fritzmann (message me) 21:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

 * Copyvio-free from the check I ran. Only matched on org names and titles

Infobox

 * Headquarters says Paris->East Berlin but article says that HQ moved back to Paris and later Brasilia; when I looked it up, it said it was in San Salvador. I would research where it is currently and update that in the infoxbox and the article.
 * Agreed. Updated with sourcing. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead

 * Citation from de Haan needs either an inline citation or to be removed.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Founding of the WIDF

 * "president of the International Alliance of Women attended the congress" > president of the International Alliance of Women, attended the congress
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Rivalry with other international organizations

 * "and the WIDF itself" > and the WIDF.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Peace as seen by WIDF members, unlike the pacifist stance of the western feminist groups, was not an avoidance or absence of war, but could only be attained if social justice was achieved,[27] and oppression and exploitation ceased." > this whole sentence is a little difficult to read. I would try: Unlike the pacifist western feminist groups, WIDF members did not see peace as the avoidance or absence of war; rather, they viewed it as the achievement of social justice and the cessation of oppression and exploitation.
 * Good! Thank you. SusunW (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "the WIDF board at its founding" > at its founding, the WIDF board
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Early activism (1945-1950)

 * "along the lines of the popular front." > which popular front is "the" popular front? this could be clarified
 * It seems a bit redundant to say "The US affiliate... formed along the lines of the US popular front." Can you clarify what you mean?


 * "joined WIDF because of its support for decolonization" > joined the WIDF because of its support for decolonization
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "mission in 1946, through" > mission in 1946 through
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "trip planned to" > trip which was scheduled to
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "1949, because of the support it had been given by " > 1949 due to the support it had received from
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "organization, Gerwis (later re-named Gerwani)" > organization, Gerwis (later re-named Gerwani),
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "changing public opinion which had" > changing public opinion, which had
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Edith García Buchaca led" > Edith García Buchaca, led
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Cold War changes (1951–1990)

 * "spent twelve days, in May 1951" move "in May 1951" to either the beginning or end of sentence
 * Moved to the end. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "was focused in North Korea" > was focused on North Korea
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "English, German, and Spanish and" > English, German, and Spanish, and
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "U.N." > UN
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Radio Free Europe;[72] Women United sent" Radio Free Europe.[72] Women United also sent
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "The United States with support from Britain, led a successful crusade in 1954,[76] to" > The United States, with support from Britain, led a successful crusade in 1954[76] to
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "banned WIDF in 1951, after its" > banned WIDF in 1951 after its
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "The Indonesian delegation led" > The Indonesian delegation, led
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Human Rights) to" > Human Rights), to
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "When WIDF raised the" > When the WIDF raised the
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Status of Women it did not" > Status of Women, it did not
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Undeterred, WIDF" > Undeterred, the WIDF
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "a member of the WIDF affiliate, the National Council of Romanian Women" > a member of the National Council of Romanian Women, a WIDF affiliate.
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Year in 1975, but did" > Year in 1975; however, it did
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "affiliated organizations of WIDF" > affiliated organizations of the WIDF
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "states and the remaining 33" > states; the remaining 33
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "In 1976, WIDF" > In 1976, the WIDF
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "In 1980, WIDF" > In 1980, the WIDF
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "(Instraw)" > (INSTRAW)
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Middle East,[107] for leadership" > Middle East[107] for leadership
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "WIDF also established" > The WIDF also established
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "FIDW" > what is FIDW? clarify
 * Typo, should be WIDF. Thanks for catching that! Changed. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "in 1986, by Javier" > in 1986 by Javier
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reorganization and current status (1991–present)

 * "on Women many WIDF" > on Women, many WIDF
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "organizations been dissolved" > organizations had been dissolved
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly perception of the organization

 * "WIDF, although it was inaugurated in Paris, was" > Although it was inaugurated in Paris, the WIDF
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "If WIDF was" > When the WIDF was
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "perception of WIDF was" > perception of the WIDF was
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "the activists of WIDF" > activists of the WIDF
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "cold war,[17] and" > Cold War[17] and
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "ascertain as there" > ascertain, as there
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "hands, some materials were destroyed, and others" > hands; some materials were destroyed and others
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * " WIDF incorporated" > the WIDF incorporated
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "religion, to determine" > religion to determine
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Taewoo Kim" > who is Taewoo Kim? add an occupation like Historian or Writer or something
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "documents, and research" > documents and research
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Other post-1945 international "communist fronts"

 * Recommend removing this header entirely, not very necessary. If you deem it necessary, recommend changing to "Other post-1945 organizations labelled as communist fronts" to appear more natural
 * ✅ SusunW (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Verifiable
Source spot check: Overall sufficient, though it does rely on communist state media for dates of conferences and other basic facts
 * "Fortalecen cooperación Federación Democrática Internacional de Mujeres y Unión de Mujeres de Vietnam": supports facts in article. reliable for this purpose
 * "Congrès de la renaissance": reliable, supports facts in article
 * "Liu, Rosa; Jian, Zhao": supports article, not sure if the CCP's official newspaper is a reliable source, but works for this purpose since it's just used to date a conference

Broad

 * Very comprehensive in its coverage.

Neutral

 * Article is neutral

Stable

 * Stable, no edit wars

Illustrated

 * Images are representative of article's content and well-captioned
 * I believe the logo image at the top of the article is incorrectly licensed. The user who uploaded it claims that it's their own work, which is unlikely. that should be labelled with the correct license
 * I'm just going to remove it because I am unsure of it. If the person who uploaded it drew it, it is hard to know if it violates trademark rules and if they used someone else's work, the license is wrong. Changed it for a stamp that has clearer licensing. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "File:E Cotton+N Popova - femmes francaises 4Aout1951.jpg" may not be public domain. Consider removing
 * I removed it on Popova's article and forgot to remove it here. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Review Verification
Hello and. I will be verifying the review and GA pass of this article; I may have a few minor questions or comments that I will leave shortly after going through the article. Fritzmann (message me) 15:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not required, but it is very good practice to fill in the ALT parameter for images with a brief description of the image. This makes it much easier for those with visual impairments to understand the images in the article, helping accessibility. Otherwise, the article is excellently illustrated.
 * I'm confused? Every image except the 1958 stamp, which is adequately explained in the caption has an alt description. SusunW (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's my fault, I saw the 1958 stamp didn't have one and assumed the others didn't; on second look this is all excellent.


 * Where does the information on membership in the various notes come from? I think these should be cited at the end of the notes, even if they are the same as the references in the body.
 * Also confused here. Each note states where the information came from, i.e. a = (Cotton (1946) pp. 403–407); b=(Joliot-Curie (1949) pp. 553–555); c=(Joliot-Curie (1949) pp. 553–555) etc. SusunW (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, can you turn those into inline references so that they show up in the references list like the others in the body? Apologies for not being clear with that.
 * Me, no. I don't have much technical ability. I only know how to do the things I know how to do. Pinging  who worked out the formatting.  SusunW (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * A reading of the "Early activism", "Reorganization and current status", and "Scholarly perception" sections gives me no concerns over the quality of prose in the article.
 * Are there any reasons for only picking the two selected publications?
 * Don't understand the question. Which two publications? SusunW (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The two publications in the "Selected Publications" section.
 * They were both discussed in some detail in the article and give a fairly good idea of the things the organization published. As there were no reviews or "reactions" to their other publications they weren't included. Some of their newsletters can be viewed at Alexander Street Press through the WP library, but determining which were significant without said reviews/reactions would be guesswork. SusunW (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * An additional spotcheck of ref 165 shows it is used effectively and appropriately, and I have no concerns about the quality of the rest of the citations and agree with the reviewer's overall assessment. however, I had a hard time finding the page number for ref 40, and it would be great if that was included like all the other refs, for ease of verifiability.
 * Added p 2 SusunW (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to take this article off the list of those needed an experienced reviewer; thank you to both of you for working well together and making an already excellent article even better! , just ping me when you've finished with those couple of small points above, and let me know if you have any further questions. Fritzmann (message me) 16:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you I've responded, but am confused about questions 1, 2, and 4. Can you clarify? SusunW (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that clears it up, sorry again for any confusion. Fritzmann (message me) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * no worries. I've pinged my collaborators for help with the technical coding stuff. SusunW (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that my collaborators are busy in real life. I played around and tried to figure out how to reformat the refs, but when I do it generates errors (Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEJoliot-Curie1949553–555" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEWIDF1953264–265" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEArmstrong2016306" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEUN2023" is not used in the content (see the help page).), which I have no idea how to fix. Sorry to be obtuse, but I don't see how I can change this, as I don't even know what a "list-defined reference" is. I only know one way to format a "Note" and it does not use "efn", so I am clueless about how to fix this. It is baffling to me why working on WP requires writers to be coders. I am definitely not a coder and have no desire to become one. However, it is not a requirement for GA for the refs to be consistently formatted, only that verifiable in-line citations be present. They are definitely cited, so I am wondering why the article does not meet the criteria? SusunW (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @SusunW @Fritzmann2002: I gave it a shot for about 30-45 minutes and couldn't figure it out either. Obviously it's some sort of formatting issue with citations in the notes, but I'm not sure how to fix it. At this point, would it be possible for you (Fritzmann) to go in and make the needed changes? If not, I feel like at this point the article should pass GA review despite that slight quirk. Please let me know what you think. Kimikel (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, sorry for missing this reply. I am promoting the GA now after attempting to fix it as well, with no luck. The minor quirk should be fine, since it is still verifiable. Fritzmann (message me) 14:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)