User:GRuban/DreamRimmer RFA

Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit

 * Her mother's family also hailed from Hamburg, the impoverished merchant family Brüggmann, which suffered during World War I.- ? Hamburg is the impoverished merchant family? How about "Her mother came from the Brüggmann family, merchants from Hamburg, who lost their fortune during WWI" (if that's what you're trying to say - the fact I don't understand whether "impoverished" and "suffered" are related is a problem in itself!)
 * In her autobiography, she referred to her adoptive father, former Nazi General Hans Gutzeit,[3] as her biological father. However, he formally adopted her only after she reached adulthood.
 * why the However? I mean, he's not her biological father no matter when he adopted her, right?
 * Also, she lied in her autobiography? Are you sure this isn't a misphrasing, such as a mistranslation from the German of some different meaning of "biological"? I've got to say, a modern mainstream politician lying in order to claim to be a blood relative of a Nazi general seems an unusual claim, it would be easier to believe a modern mainstream politician lying in order to claim not to be a blood relative of a Nazi general.
 * She had a half-sister who was four years older from her mother's first marriage.
 * had? Doesn't any more? Clarify
 * "was four years older from her mother's first marriage" sounds awkward. How about "a half-sister, four years older, from her mother's first marriage"?
 * This is also awkwardly placed, since she had the half-sister since birth, but this is put after her being adopted at adulthood. I'd move it either before or after Peschel-Gutzeit's biological father didn't play a significant role in her life.
 * She served as the chairwoman of the German Association of Women Lawyers (Deutscher Juristinnenbund [de]) from 1977 to 1981 and joined the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in 1988.[6] Starting in 1972, she served as a family judge at the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in Hamburg. In 1984, following some internal conflicts, she became the first woman appointed as the chair of a family senate. - Why 1977 then 1988 then 1972 then 1984? Why not put these events in chronological order?
 * Same for the next few bits - 1990, then 1988, then 1991 ?
 * In 1988, as part of Emma magazine's PorNO campaign, a legislative proposal aiming to establish a German law against pornography, developed in collaboration with Peschel-Gutzeit, was published; however, it did not get implemented.[8] Avoided the verb at the end putting should be, or like Yoda to sound we risk. This is the article about her, she should be the main actor in most of it. How about "...campaign, she developed a legislative proposal ... ; however ..." (see I'm not against all howevers on principle, just where they fit!)
 * Why does Voscherau III Senate have a redlink and [Wikidata] link but Diepgen III Senate in the very next sentence not?
 * Peschel-Gutzeit left office and retired from politics.[1] She implemented corresponding legislative proposals
 * How could she implement anything if she left office?
 * What does "corresponding" mean here?
 * Neue Juristische Wochenschrift. = needs italics, it's the name of a magazine
 * She advocated for joint parental custody and children's rights. - Weird place to make a paragraph break, right after another "She advocated" sentence. Is there a difference between the two advocacies?
 * In 2019, she founded the family and inheritance law firm ... In 2019, she was honored with the Marie Juchacz Women's Prize Wasn't the second event before the first? The sources are.
 * Her first marriage to a terminally ill colleague ended in 1958 - what?
 * Did she have other marriages to terminally ill colleagues? Desperately needs a pair of commas: "Her first marriage, to a terminally ill colleague, ended..."
 * Less flippantly, this needs more details, this is supposed to be a GA, you can't just throw it off like that. Yes, lots of people get married, and even marrying colleagues isn't that rare, in general we have some ideas why people get married, we can let that go. But not everyone gets married to terminally ill colleagues! That's actually kind of rare! Did she know he was terminally ill? How long were they married? Please expand.
 * Titled 'Naturally Equal,' Peschel-Gutzeit published her autobiography in 2012 - No, just no. "Peschel-Gutzeit published her autobiography, titled Naturally Equal, in 2012." Please.
 * Also a few details or at least reviews of the book would not go amiss; in fact in a GA I'd think they be required.
 * Autobiography written with Brüdgam, Nele-Marie (2013). Selbstverständlich gleichberechtigt: eine autobiographische Zeitgeschichte [Naturally Equal: Hoffmann and Campe] (in German) (2nd ed.). Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe. Hoffmann and Campe is not part of the title, it's the publishing house; don't translate it as part of the title!

Q & A
I found this in User:DreamRimmer's request for adminship. Instead of typing "why the However? I mean, he's not her biological father no matter when he adopted her, right?", you could have simply deleted that word. That's just one example; everything here is an example of you taking the long road for no reason I can guess. Why not just make these changes?  City o f  Silver  23:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because, as the title of this page says, this page is not an attempt to improve that article, as such; I improve articles all the time, as, I assume, do you; that's what it means to be a Wikipedian. If no one else gets around to these points, I will, eventually; I am not fast. This is a sort of question to DreamRimmer, who is standing for Administrator, partly on the strength of that article. It's debatable whether one RFA is more or less important than one article, but there are certainly fewer of them! And Admins definitely have more power over articles than articles have over Administrators. Anyway, their reaction to this list of suggestions is, in my humble opinion, a rather important part of what it means to be a Wikipedia Administrator. I imagine you can guess what I would consider a favorable reaction, and an unfavorable reaction. It's not a trick question, it's hopefully a rather straight forward one. --GRuban (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm interpreting this part of question 19
 * ...you could refuse to answer it. This would, in itself, be a valuable answer.
 * and this sentence from your reply here
 * I imagine you can guess what I would consider a favorable reaction, and an unfavorable reaction.
 * as [uh, well, gee, "threats" has such a negative connotation so please replace this bracketed text with a gentler synonym for threats] that the nominee must answer question #19 to your standard or you'll vote to oppose their request. If I'm wrong, there's a true possibility you'll vote to support even if they give a bad answer or no answer at all. Am I right?  City o f  Silver  04:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I wrote "may well support regardless of your answer" though I admit the question was all one edit, so it may not have come out clearly. Isn't that the whole point of RFA questions? That the candidate's answer to any of them may affect the vote of whoever reads it?
 * Another link that may have gotten lost in my post there is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flickr_-_boellstiftung_-_Lore_Marie_Peschel-Gutzeit_(1).jpg and the resulting https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flickr_-_boellstiftung_-_Lore_Marie_Peschel-Gutzeit_(1).jpg - if you look there, I am defending the image from the candidate's article in question from deletion. Looks like it may have worked, actually, the person who nominated it for deletion seems to be withdrawing their request. Again, the candidate seems like a good guy (gal?), and the article is a good article (lowercase), even if I am interested in their reaction to this somewhat irregular question, and worry about it being a Good article (uppercase), respectively. I'm gathering you're here to defend the candidate and/or article - apologies for the misunderstanding if you are not.
 * I appreciate your coming here. Sometime around now I would ask whether you would like to collaborate on an article, but I'm just a bit overloaded right now, I've got two drafts in the pipeline that I'm working on, and one other person already asked for my help, which I haven't yet given much of, so I hope you'll give a raincheck on that. When those tasks are done, I hope to come find you and make that offer. Thank you for your kind words. --GRuban (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)