Talk:Varia Kipiani/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 12:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This looks a very well researched and interesting article submitted by SusunW and worthy of being a GA. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 98% of authorship is by SusunW. It is currently assessed as a B class article.

• The text is clear and uses appropriate vocabulary.
• It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style
• The article is of appropriate length, with 3,995 words of readable prose.
• Although long, the lead seems of appropriate length at 525 words given the complexity of the topic.
• The paragraph starting "From 1863, Russification and later Sovietization policies pushed for cultural assimilation" seems to introduce a major topic outside the remit of the article. I recognise this was mentioned in the Talk page but suggest all but the last two sentences be summarised and instead moved to the relevant page as per WP:SUMMARY and WP:TOPIC.

Perhaps it is better as an explanatory note? My concern is that the last two sentences were initially what was there, but caused confusion. I've moved it there, see what you think. Please feel free to suggest how I could make the summary shorter, as truly I've whittled 100 years of policy history into those few sentences. I have absolutely no problem making changes, just cannot see what to leave out at this point. SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel that this looks excellent, works well for the reader and is consistent with MOS:NOTES, enabling the text to flow and yet providing information on the wider context. simongraham (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Otherwise, it is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
• There is no evidence of edit wars.
• Text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced perspective.
• In the lead, the phrase "she taught school in Khoni for two years" could be improved to "she taught in a school in Khoni for two years"

 Done SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• The phrase "She wrote a paper "L'ergographie du sucre"" could be improved by adding the word "titled"

 Done SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Consider adding a comma after "in the Caucasus Viceroyalty of the Russian Empire" and "who spoke Georgian, Russian, and French" as I believe that these are the end of the subclauses.

 Done SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• "Paedology was an emerging science at the time and their studies attempted to examine childhood development from both a physiological and psychological view as a basis for improving education." Suggest clarifying who "their" relates to - it is the faculty identified in the previous sentence? Also suggest adding a comma after "time".

Yes, it's the faculty, but I don't want the text to be redundant, used "researchers" and inserted comma. SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• "The implementation and severity of reforms was impacted," should be "The implementation and severity of reforms were impacted".

 Done SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• "cultrual" should read "cultural".

 Done SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest using bracketing commas around "and particularly after World War II".

 Done SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
• Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 35.9% chance of copyright violation, which is therefore given as unlikely. The highest hit was to the article La preuve par l’enquête : médecins et promotion du végétarisme en France et en Belgique autour de 1900 and the similarities seem to be mostly titles.
• Citations seem to be thorough.
• References appear to be from reputable sources.
• Many of the references are in non-English languages, including those I have limited experience of.
• All accessible sources are live.
• Spotchecks confirm Alvarez & Graham 1997, Depaepe 1998 and Löwy & Nowak 2020 are relevant.
• The images are appropriate and relevant.
• The image Józefa Joteyko & Varia Kipiani 1910.png requires a US PD tag.

I'm confused? It has one. "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer." and "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1927." are both on the upload I did in 2019 for Joteyko's article. SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I must have missed that. simongraham (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• All other images have appropriate licensing and public domain tags.

@SusunW: As has already been said, this is a truly huge achievement. A real tour de force. Congratulations on all the solid research. Please see my comments above, which are mainly suggestions, and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

simongraham Thank you so much for picking this article up and taking the time to review and improve it. I had wanted to write her since I did Joteyko but just could not find information about anything other than "Varia"′s work. When I finally found a source that illuminated that she published under her nickname and that her given name was Barbare, her life details finally emerged, but without Kober's help on the Georgian, it would have been impossible. With sources in Dutch, English (few), French, Georgian, German, Polish, and Russian, it truly took a village to write this one. I think I have addressed all of your queries, but if not, please ping me. SusunW (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW: Thank you. I will complete my assessment now. simongraham (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2022 (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.

2. 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;

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

3. 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).

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. 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.

It has been an privilege to undertake this review, SusunW, and to honor the village that you have brought together to create this article. I believe that it meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.