Talk:Elena Arizmendi Mejía/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) 13:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

1. Starting review. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
2. After some informal discussion, I'm getting back to this and updating the table, point by point. I'll make it clear when I've finished but it's bedtime now. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
3. I've been distracted but have gotten back into this. Engaging directly with copy-editing issues is perhaps over-stepping my brief but seems necessary to make good progress. Some discussion of the detail on the talk page may be needed to thrash out particular issues. It's getting late so I'll pause to see what people make of this update. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
4. More distractions but I've made an entry for each part of the checklist now. As some of these have been addressed, I'll loop round again after a pause for further responses. Apologies if this is slow going but it's my first GAR and I'm trying to be careful. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

   No problems Andrew Davidson I'd truly rather we get it right than not. I do appreciate you sticking with it, as I know it can be hard to review. I'll go through and provide answers. SusunW (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

5. I've added some more points. In particular, I wanted to get a taste of Se llamaba Elena Arizmendi as this is such a major source. I've browsed the first chapter and feel that we can do more from what this has. Have you good access to this work? Does it not answer some of the details such as the exact fate of her child or children of her first marriage? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As I have said, I don't have access to it. I wrote to Cano and asked if she had answers to specific questions that she would be willing to share from the book, but have had no reply. If you have found an accessible copy, please share it. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I found it at Academia where it seems to have been uploaded by Cano so I suppose it's fair use. The PDF seems to be a scan of the book. I was able to OCR it and then translate it to English but the result was not pretty. If you're fluent in Spanish, the original would be best. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me read through it and I'll get back to you. SusunW (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson I've read it and analyzed it below. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rush you Andrew Davidson, but it's been almost a month since this began and four days since I answered the last of your queries. Will you advise me of what we still need to do to move the article forward? Thanks! SusunW (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry to keep you but some drama blew up which has been a big distraction. And then today my focus has been on a different WiR event. That's on Zoom so you might like to try joining in one month.

Anyway, I need a break now but will try to do an update before I get sucked into something else like the WikiDataCon which has just started.

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for drama. Hope it all works out okay. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Andrew Davidson -- I'm just checking in on the handful of GA reviews still in progress for the Women in Green GA editathon event. Are you able to continue this review? If you have any questions about the process, please keep in mind that WikiProject Women in Green is a great place for reviewers to ask for advice or a second opinion. All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: I've not forgotten but the drama I referred to above has lasted about two weeks and there was a fresh incident today. And it has been a busy time for me with a college reunion and other commitments. I'll try to wind this up tomorrow. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, I had hoped that we could finish this up today, but as more than half of the day has lapsed and it is evening on your side of the pond, it seems as if that is not going to happen. I have been patient for going-on 6 weeks to give you time to finish this review with an understanding that we are all volunteers and our time is split between real life obligations and WP. When you asked for more time, because it was your first review and because of other focuses, I agreed. However, at the same time, I have been unable to focus fully on my own other projects, as I believe I needed to be available to respond to your queries on this review in a timely manner. I do not wish to put more pressure upon you. In that light, I would respectfully ask that if you cannot wrap this up today, that you withdraw from the review. Perhaps Alanna the Brave can ask one of the other reviewers from the editathon to look at it to enable me to move this project off of my pending list. Thanks. SusunW (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I said that I would get back to this today and that's still my plan but it's easy to get distracted. I've just started another article which may interest you but I reckon I've done enough now to get it started. There's dinner to do too but otherwise I'll try to give this my full attention. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have completed the review. I've done the follow-up actions too but if I've missed something, please advise. There's still 20 minutes to go before midnight but I'm travelling to a family funeral tomorrow and so will be mostly unavailable on that day. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Review checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I spotted some clear errors such as the typo Vasoncelos and felt that there many other copy-edits which were needed. Rather than itemise these, it seemed simpler to edit the article and so I've made a copy-editing pass through the lead. Of course, these can be reverted if someone disagrees. But there still remain some issues in the lead. The prose still seems too detailed and heavy for a lead. I used an online tool to assess it and it scored as about twelfth grade – the final year of secondary school. This is perhaps debatable or a matter of taste. But there are other issues that I'm not sure about. For example, the use of Spanish or English for the names of the various organizations seems inconsistent. Why is it the Neutral White Cross when our article has it as the La Cruz Blanca? I'm willing to make whatever changes you feel necessary, but without you specifically stating what you want, I am puzzled as to how I am to address your concerns. I write as I speak. (As a kid, I read the dictionary to learn new words for fun.) I've edited the lede, but I have no idea about an "online tool to assess the language". I am happy to try it, given the caveat that I am not remotely technical and it may be impossible for me. As for the Spanish vs English names, our guidelines are inconsistent. On the one hand they say use English, use foreign words sparingly, and then if the subject is non-English include the foreign language equivalent, don't use foreign language equivalents in the lede (my emphasis), etc. I typically ask various polyglots (See conversation here with Ian about this article and our guidelines) to review text on non-English subjects. SusunW (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC) As a kid, I had an encyclopedia as bed-time reading for fun but we're not typical. I tried the lead on my wife just now. She's not stupid -- she has a master's -- but she stumbled on the word "apolitical" which was unfamiliar as she's not used to reading about politics. But we're not the simple English version so let's not get too hung up on that. I still see some inconsistency of Spanish vs English for the names of things like organisations but it's not a show-stopper. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I've not noticed any significant issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some of the sources may be debatable in that there are different accounts of the subject but the general standard seems acceptable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The accounts of the first marriage seem to vary. Here it says "Sadly, their first child was stillborn, and the experience left her unable to conceive again, a loss she felt deeply. Additionally, she found herself subjected to physical abuse, which drove her to seek and obtain an early form of divorce." The article has a different account which seems to be based on a primary source – a death certificate. It may well be right but seems to be OR. As per policy, OR is "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Collado Soto says the child was aborted. Mitchell, thanks for the source and I've added it to the existing note, says the child was stillborn. The birth certificate states it was a live birth and the death certificate states the child died of meningitis. The note following carried the varying accounts without postulating about their accuracy. All are published sources, a government document is not likely to be fabricated or in error and is reliable, and all of the facts are stated explicitly in the sources. Primary sources can be quoted without drawing conclusions and are not bad or inaccurate. If you like, I can take out the death to meningitis part, but it is directly stated in the source cited. SusunW (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC) I see a note now to explains the various accounts of the child's death so that shows the need for the primary source and so that's ok. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig does not report anything significant and I see no reason to doubt it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article doesn't say much about the subject's character and traits -- her appearance, personality, health, intelligence, &c. I get a general impression that she was passionate and strong-willed but would like more, if it's known. Here, I see her described as an "Arielista". I suppose that's a political alignment but don't know much about it. Yes, Arielism was a utopian ideology, which basically elevated the values of Latin America and its roots in European culture, devaluing the contributions of indigenous people and Africans, and specifically repudiating the cultural and economic expansionism of US ideology.[1] It's sort of already in the article when I talk about her views concerning Anglo-American feminists and roots of Latin culture, but I'll use your source and name it. I think we have hints of her personality, (she was the only one who noted the behavior of the Anglo-American feminists at the 1922 conference, despite Vasconcelos' repeated attempts she stubbornly refused to reconcile with him, she argued with an ambassador, showing she was knowledgeable about the law), but I don't have access to anything more than what we have in the way of sources. (I did however add that she didn't mishandle the funds. Again thanks for finding the source for Mitchell, definitely some good info in it.) SusunW (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC) I found an online extract of Se llamaba Elena Arizmendi – the first 29 pages. My Spanish is weak but I've run this through Google Translate and it appears that the book contains the sort of personal descriptions that I was hoping for. For example, She refused to be appreciated only for her beauty but, at the same time, she was proud to be an attractive woman and possessor of a great power of seduction, which she learned to use from a very young age. ... The short, haughty nose trembled ... a dimple in each cheek ... and black eyes... a narrow forehead almost white under the black abundant hair ... not a single physical defect could be found. Her gait with long legs, wide hips, narrow waist and narrow shoulders, made people turn to look at her. ... a Zapatista chief, stationed on the north side of Alameda, was dazzled by the figure of the beautiful woman who was walking down Puente de Alvarado Street. The man insisted on taking a photo with Elena and then persuaded her to fire one of his battalion's cannons. Arizmendi agreed to take the photo and had no choice but to agree to the request. However, as the cannon had never been fired before, the cannonball hit the Church of San Hipólito, causing one of its towers to fall. ... Elena's physical attractiveness and her taste for showing her beauty favored the mass circulation of portraits which were published in the press or on a postcards such as after the battle of Ciudad Juarez in 1911. She was photographed by cinema pioneer Salvador Toscano and engraved by artist José Guadalupe Posada... There's also something about Sir Ernest Shackleton which is lost in translation but sounds intriguing. We need more of such descriptions and details, please. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC) First, I don't have access to whatever you are seeing. Will you provide a link? Second, I am genuinely curious, would you put this type of description in a male subject's biography? The descriptions you have given above, to me are objectifying, using her appearance as if that is somehow indicative of her character or worth. I am willing to discuss, but am not willing to describe her physical attractiveness and sexualize her in a way that that becomes the focus rather than the actual contributions she made to society as a feminist and humanitarian. I readily admit that I may not be objective about including that material and am happy to seek other input if you want. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC) For the source, please see above. Myself, I expect a physical description of any subject, especially if it's something that they were famous for, as in this case. For an example of mine, see Robert Gibbon Johnson, "His customary style was a ruffled shirt with his silvery hair in a queue ... He was a keen equestrian and rode in a bold, erect style into his seventies. ... He was a very impressive-looking man as he walked along the street. He was dressed in his usual black suit with white ruffles, black shoes and gloves, tricorn hat, and cane." Such word pictures seem vital for people from other times and places because our readers cannot be expected to know how such subjects appeared, dressed and behaved. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC) I have written thousands of biographies of women (over 1,000 for WP) and only rarely included a physical description. If I did so, it was because there was either no photograph of the subject, or they were engaged in a field, such as acting, where appearance is taken into account for their work. Typically, I follow Sarah/Slim Virgin's advice in the essay Wikipedia:Writing about women. As for the 1st chapter of Se llamaba Elena Arizmendi (thanks for the link), I've read and analyzed the material. Reviewers have said, and Cano acknowledges, that she did a comparison of Vasconcelos' works (the uncensored early versions prior to his rewrites in the 1950s, which expunged many of his earlier negative depictions (p 21).) and Arizmendi's. Given what various reviewers have stated about the things he called her and that they say she wrote her book to counter his depictions, I think we can agree that his was not an objective view. Per Alberto J. Pani (your link for Cano, p 14) Vasconcelos intent was to harm those who he thought had betrayed him and he intended to portray her as an "erotic sorceress"(p 22) in the manner of the virulent misogyny of the time. He objectified her and emphasized her femininity in his literary representations.(p 23) Cano says of his descriptions that his literary characterization was a caricature.(p 27) (As for the bit on Shackleton, it merely says he was an admirer and gives a brief account of his adventures.) Based on a review of the material and what others have said of Vansconcelos' work, I am not willing to use any of his descriptions of her. However, I have added According to professor Gabriela Cano Ortega, historians and critics have noted that Arizmendi was known for her physical beauty and the warmth of her personality, despite her privilege as an elite member of society. She was photographed by Salvador Toscano and was the subject of an engraving by José Guadalupe Posada. to the legacy section. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC) That addition will do for GA level, I reckon, as it's reasonable editorial discretion which aspects are emphasised or summarised. I would write this differently myself and would oppose FA status on the grounds of incompleteness but that's in the future. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I drilled down on the first paragraph in the Activism section. This was to understand why the Guardian was being cited. The points made about Fransman seem quite tangential and anachronistic. At the time, it seems that it was normal practice in most nations for wives to take their husband's nationality. Fransman's comment that this is ludicrous is being misquoted because he just talks about the UK government rather than governments in general. And the point comes across as modern-day editorialising about the issue. This is counter to the subject's position which was that it was ok for her to be politicking in the US as her husband was American. Her dispute with the Consul General seems to be an unimportant argument which is not improved by the tangent. What I, as a reader, want to know is more about her husband, Robert Duersch – what was his profession and politics and why did she marry him? The article does not say and so is failing to focus on the topic as it should. The points made by Fransman are necessary to underscore that in all likelihood she became stateless. While he was discussing British law, I disagree that he was not speaking broadly, using the UK situation as an example. Having worked on nationality articles since January trying to clarify the status of women in each country, I have read hundreds of sources on the issue. The way these laws were crafted, stating that a husband's nation would grant her nationality, was a "legal fiction" many writers called it, as it is very clear that laws were not uniform. Fransman makes the point most succinctly. "This was ludicrous, because UK legislation cannot confer the nationality of another country: it can only grant or remove British nationality. In effect therefore, many women became stateless". Was she stateless? I don't know. It would appear that she was. (I confirmed this with a Mexican attorney who practices international family law at the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del Estado de Yucatán, but I find no secondary sources that state that. He noted that she had lost her Mexican and German nationality, upon marriage/naturalization of her spouse and under US law was not a national unless she naturalized.) I find no record that she naturalized in the US or that she repatriated to Mexico when the law changed in 1934, but it is still possible that she did so. Her words don't contradict Fransman at all, "Elena Arizmendi recordaba al cónsul Arturo M. Elías que ella podía inmiscuirse en la política estadounidense pues, según las leyes mexicanas, había adquirido la nacionalidad de su esposo". ["Elena Arizmendi reminded Consul Arturo M. Elías that she could interfere in American politics because, according to Mexican law, she had acquired her husband's nationality".](Hernández Juárez, 2018, p. 4-5) To me, they seem very carefully crafted. She does not say she is American, she says "according to Mexican law" she has American nationality. I've changed the text to read pointed out that the legal practice of changing a woman's nationality upon marriage based upon her husband's nationality assumes that a nation has the ability to confer the nationality of another nation upon a subject. Better? Despite hours of searching, I have no access to anything that gives any more detail on her husband. I even wrote to Gabriela Cano, the author who has written most about Arizmendi to ask about the husband and the whole nationality situation. To date I've had no reply. However, it may be that something comes to light as when I first wrote the article 6 years ago, there was little information written about her and now there are numerous sources. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC) I just went back and looked at his naturalization petition, his application states that his occupation was a foreign correspondent, in 1916, but by 1923 he listed his occupation as clerk, no idea what field. (Interestingly, he and Elena had different addresses in 1923, when he applied for naturalization. So they were separated?) If you think his occupation adds anything to put that in I can, but I tend to think he is tangential/peripheral to her story, except that his presence made her nationality murky. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC) Here it says "in New York, where she married a US citizen, Robert Deutsch. The couple were ill suited, however, with little in common, and they soon separated." This indicates that Cano's Se llamaba Elena Arizmendi has something to say about the marriage but I don't have access to that main source. Note the difference in spelling – Deutsch/Duersch. I supposed that's a typo but the difference may matter when searching for more info. I know, it's frustrating. I followed up with her a second time, but still have no reply from Cano, so I am thinking she isn't going to reply. I've done a search on Deutsch but find nothing in relation to Arizmendi except Mitchell's piece, which I assume is a typo, as he clearly knew how to spell his own name when he signed the naturalization petition. I added a statement that they were incompatible, based upon your Mitchell source.SusunW (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC) The nationality issue still seems excessive to me but I'll pass that as a matter of editorial discretion. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	As noted above, I feel that the point about nationality and marriage is soapboxing a bit. Why? I removed the part about it being ludicrous, which you said was "editorialising about the issue", as I concurred that while accurate it was not neutral. I disagree that it wasn't relevant either to her or to her life. She could not vote, live where she wished, and would have had difficulty traveling or gaining assistance from any government because she wasn't Mexican, German, or American. How is it soapboxing to explain how that came about? SusunW (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Back in those days, there was less formality about international travel and the upper classes were used to travelling around the world freely by virtue of their wealth and status. Passports, papers and intense suspicion of aliens arose during WW1 and were still being established during the 1920s and 1930s. Nowadays, I couldn't travel to the US this year as planned due to an international travel ban and all the bureaucracy of ESTA and the like. So, I still think the issue is being overstated but not enough for a fail as I could be wrong about the detail. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This review is generating activity but there are no signs of significant instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Looking at the lead image, this doesn't seem to make the copyright status in Mexico clear. That's the country of most relevance for this and their copyright term is now especially lengthy. She was in exile from Mexico and living in the US between 1915-1938. Given that, it is doubtful that the photograph was taken in Mexico; however, Mexican copyright expires after 100 years, thus it would have expired in 2017. Looks to me like it's covered in the tag that is on it, but if you think I should add a Mexican tag I can. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC) No worries. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The group picture of the Neutral White Cross doesn't say which woman is the subject. Added "holding the anesthesia bottle and cotton". Better? SusunW (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Yes, that's fine now thanks. Another image issue is the infobox portrait. This has a forced size of 150 px which makes it rather small and unimpressive. When I remove this setting, it then appears at a default size which makes the picture much more detailed and impressive. But I think this is based on my preferences setting which is set to 400 px as I don't get this when I try the page incognito. Anyway, please can we remove the size forcing so that personal preferences work. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)  Done SusunW (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks. The lead picture looks great on my monitor now. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	We've hashed out lots of issues. These have either been amended or we have agreed to disagree or compromise. None of the remaining issues seem to be show-stoppers as they are either a matter of editorial discretion and taste or they are more appropriate for an FA review, which is more demanding. I wrote the article perfect is the enemy of good and so, in that spirit, will pass this as good to go. Thanks to SusunW for her patience and steadfast efforts. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)