Talk:Betsy Bakker-Nort/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 11:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome Good day User:Edwininlondon, if I may call you so. I propose to review your GA nomination Betsy Bakker-Nort. Admittedly, I am only an apprentice-reviewer, whereas you are a widely respected experienced wikipedian. I must also warn you that my English is 2nd language and that I am no subject-matter expert. I will propose corrections based on the GA criteria (WP:GACR), but also suggest other improvements. Please tell me if you disagree with a correction: I am probably wrong. You can ignore my suggestions as they have no effect on the article's promotion. Should I lack in respect, complain (see WP:CIVIL). You can have me banned.

Thank you for taking the time to review. And thank you for your kind words. Not sure if all of it is true (widely respeced?), but I appreciate the message!

I will soon start a first traverse.

Before the article content

• Infobox: I suggest to remove the unbulleted list {{ubl}} as it holds only one list item.
  • Done. It was a left-over from Corry Tendeloo.

Lead

The instructions in the Manual of Style's Lead Section must be complied with.

• The article's prose length is 5462 B, the lead is too long. GACR Rule 1b, invoking MOS:LEADLENGTH; for its length of 5462 B the lead should have only 2 paragraphs, not three. Please merge, drop, shorten or reduce the lead to 2 paragraphs by any means.
  • Done.

• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... Vereeniging vir Vrouwenkierecht (VVVK) ... – GACR Rule 1a "spelling"; separate with commas.
  • Done.

• 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... read law ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; The University of Groningen has a Law department. She would have therefore followed courses and not "read law" (referring to Reading law), in the old-fashioned sense of the term. See further down under the "Early activism" section where a similar statement is supported by 2 citations.
  • Changed into "study law". I mistakenly thought that "to read law" and "to study law" are identical. Good catch!

Early life

Seems fine

Early activism

• Image location. - Suggestion. I feel that the image directly under the section header is not well placed. The header should sit over a block of text. I suggest: find a better position (see MOS:IMAGELOCATION), possibly right-align.
  • Done.

• 1st paragraph, 7th sentence: ... interest and law ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; the translation of the title of the periodic is misleading "belang" can be interest in the sense of something that I am interested in, but not interest (money) to be paid. I would translate "Belang en recht" as "The importance of the law". I suggest give the Dutch title and then an approximate translation between parentheses.
  • Done. Another good catch.

• 1st paragraph, 8th sentence: ... social-liberal nature. – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; I suggest "social-liberal orientation".
  • Done.

• 1st paragraph, last sentence: They did not have children. – GACR Rule 1a "concise"; I suggest "They had no children."
  • Done.

• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: started reading law at the University of Groningen ... law.[14][15] – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; The relevant passage in the second citation (see https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JqHdegOoRHkC&pg=PA268) reads "... de tweedejaars rechtenstudente Betsy Bakker-Nort ..." ("the 2nd-year law student Betsy Bakker-Nort") shows that she studied law at the university and did not "read law" in the old-fashioned way discussed in Reading law. I did not find the source of the other citation.
  • I have replaced the 2 sources with the Braun 2013 source.

—Dear Edwin, with many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Dear Johannes, thank you for your comments so far. I look forward to more. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph, 8th sentence: Unable to restrict herself ... couverture, a legal doctrine in the English common law ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; Your remark is of course valid, but I fear the reader might find that you jump too suddenly from the Dutch context to the English one and might wonder whether the English one is relevant at all. The article about couverture talks about "analoguous concepts" of "marital power" in Roman-Dutch law and the "Napoleonic code". You might need to add content (an extra sentence or two) that explains marital powers as the Dutch saw it, and then only, IMHO, you can introduce Common Law coverture as a comparison. Would not the "marital power" of the Dutch law come from the "patria potestas" in the Roman law?

• I agree with your assessment of it being quite a jump. I have removed the reference to Common Law couverture altogether. Where it comes from beyond the Napoleonic Code is probably outside the scope of the article, or possibly in a footnote. I shall research your patria potestas.

• I have added to the footnote that the origin is patria potestas.

• 2nd paragraph, 9th sentence: As described in the 1838 civil code, married women were legally similar to the status ... – GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; You might mean "... the status of married women was legally similar to that of ..."

• Done

• 2nd paragraph, 9th sentence, citation Sikkema: ... similar to the status of minors and people with severe mental health problems. – GACR Rule 2, Note 3 "support the content of the article"; The text on page 119 of the cited source (i.e. Sikkema) discusses the general topic but not the given sentence. More specifically it does not support the comparison of the wife's legal status with that of minors and people with severe mental health problems. You might simply remove the inline citation (the GACR do not require full verifiability). Please keep the precious Sikkema reference, which would be orphaned by such a removal, for future use by other editors.

• Sikkema indeed does not mention this on page 119 but on page 118. Fixed.

• 2nd paragraph, 9th sentence, Note A: Already in the country's first civil code ... – GACR Rule 1a, Note 3 "understanding"; The reader might take the "already" as meaning that later legislation was introducing even harsher limitations. IMHO you do not need the "Already". Just state that the country's first civil code severely limited the rights of married women.

• Done

• 2nd paragraph, 11th sentence: ... other countries, often for centuries. – GACR Rule 1a, Note 3 "understanding"; IMHO we do not need the apposition "often for centuries". I think you do not so much think of the length of time but of how late such limitations survived until eventually abolished.

• Done

• 2nd paragraph, 11th sentence, Note B: In Europe, the roots of couverture ... – GACR Rule 1a, Note 3 "understanding"; The reader might consider "couverture" as English and a digression in the discussion of her Dutch law studies. If you want a Note here, it should be about "marital power" in terms of the Dutch law. As before, should you decide to remove the note entirely, please keep the reference Glenn that might be useful to other editors in future extensions to the article.

• Agreed. Done

• 2nd paragraph, penultimate sentence: After completing her thesis Bakker-Nort went on to work as a lawyer ... – GACR Rule 1a, Note 3 "understanding"; Did you say somewhere that she started working as a layer before? Should this not read "started to work as a lawyer"?

• Yes, started is what I meant. Fixed.

• 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: Bakker-Nort considered getting women the right to vote in elections to be a principal ... - GACR Rule 1a,"understanding"; The sentence is long. It might be possible to simplify it. E.g. one could omit "in elections".

• Done

• 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence: The women's suffrage campaign was won in 1919, following a private member's bill from ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; the reader might wonder whether the term "private member's bill" is not particular to Westminster systems. The article Private member's bill does not mention the Netherlands. It seems in Dutch this type of a proposal is an "initiatiefvoorstel". It might be better to avoid Westminster terminology and say something like "won in 1919, when a corresponding law, introduced by the VDB's Henri Marchant, was adopted".

• Yes, it would be better to avoid Westminster terminology. There were a few more private bill mentions, simplified them all to bill.

• 3rd paragraph, penultimate sentence: She singled out the "incompetency to act" law, calling it humiliating. - GACR Rule 1a, I wonder whether the reader can understand which law she meant, and in fact I do not. Could you clarify?

• I have tweaked both here and in the previous paragraph the "incompetency to act" wording.

Lead (revisited)

I think her "other" first name Bertha is important enough to appear in the first sentence as this name is given as her only official first name the reference Braun (2013).

• I agreed with you. Then I did some double checking and realised I had misinterpreted what Braun in BWN wrote. From looking at all the other entries in BWN it is obvious to me now that Braun said she was born with the full name Bertha Nort. All the other entries have as title full names as well. She added "known under the name of Betsy Bakker-Nort". Klijnsma and Meijer both use Bertha. The official governemnt site parlement.com has "Bertha (Betsy)". The only source using Elisabeth is Atria, saying "Alternative names: Bertha Nort, Elisabeth Bakker-Nort, Bertha". I believe the best way forward is to use Bertha "Betsy" Bakker-Nort in the lead with a footnote saying "One source has "Elisabeth" as an alternative first name.
  • Well done!

Early life (revisited)

• Only paragraph, 1st sentence, 1st citation (of 4): <ref name=atriabio/> - The 1st reference is called "atriabio". It refers to a biography of Corry Tendeloo, which does not mention Betsy Bakker-Nort. I suspect in this place the citation is an error, a survial from a copy-and-paste from the article Corry Tendeloo. —Just to give the context: the name "atriabio" is defined in the section "1937–1940", further down as:

<ref name=atriabio>{{cite web|url=https://atria.nl/nieuws-publicaties/feminisme/bekende-feministen/corry-tendeloo/|title=Corry Tendeloo|language=nl|date=23 August 2008|first=Mariek |last=Hilhorst|work=[[Atria Institute on gender equality and women's history]]|access-date=18 October 2021|archive-date=15 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415041922/https://atria.nl/nieuws-publicaties/feminisme/bekende-feministen/corry-tendeloo/|url-status=live}}</ref>.

• Yes, indeed a copy paste error. Fixed. The Tendeloo Atria bio was needed, but that meant I had forgotten to provide the Bakker-Nort Atria bio. Good catch.

• Only paragraph, 1st sentence, 2nd citations (of 4): <ref name=huygens>{{cite web|url=http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/bwn/BWN/lemmata/bwn5/nort|title=Nort, Bertha (1874-1946)|first=Marianne|last=Braun|website=Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland|language=nl|date=12 November 2013|access-date=21 May 2022|archive-date=21 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220521015244/http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/bwn/BWN/lemmata/bwn5/nort|url-status=live}}</ref> - The 2nd reference is called "huygens". This refers to the biography of "Bertha Nort" (sic) by Marianne Braun that appears on the website of the Biografisch Woordeboek van Nederland (BWN), but you call it "Digitaal Vrouwenlexikan van Nederland". I do not really understand.

I suggest that the BWN should appear in the source list and should not be cited with <ref><ref> but with {{Sfn}}. I first thought you had not found the BWN as it is not in the References section.

• I have tried to locate the BWN but have not yet had any success. The Huygens web page says its article is based on the BWN 5 (2002). The "Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland" is another copy paste error from the Tendeloo article. I fixed that. Sorry about that! I'm reluctant to use a source I have not seen. And I can see here [[1]] on page 219 that the BWN chapter about Bakker-Nort is over a 100 pages long (pp 270-372), although that may well be a typo. Anyway, I don't think I can use the print version of BWN at the moment, without being able to cite actual page numbers. I have to stick with this web page for the time being. I have made the website=Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands.

• Added while coming back later, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Just like you, I failed to find the BWN, Deel 5, online anywhere. Published in 2002 it is of course still copyrighted. However, It is entirely fine to cite the online edition and add it to the source list. Many illustrious wikipedians cite the online edition of the ODNB, e.g. User:Ealdgyth in Lyfing (archbishop of Canterbury). She cites the ODNB inline in several places using <ref name=NDB></ref> and then adds the reference to the source list where she describes the article on Lyfing as:

{{cite encyclopedia |author=Mason, Emma |title=Lyfing (d. 1020) |encyclopedia=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2004 |url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16798 |access-date=7 November 2007 |doi= 10.1093/ref:odnb/16798 }}* {{cite encyclopedia |author=Mason, Emma |title=Lyfing (d. 1020) |encyclopedia=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2004 |url=http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16798 |access-date=7 November 2007 |doi= 10.1093/ref:odnb/16798 }} {{ODNBsub}}

—Beste Edwin. Groete, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, I did not get this entirely right. An important difference between your nomination and Lyfing is that Ealdgyth uses <ref></ref> throughout for the inline citations, whereas you use {{Sfn}}. An example using {{Sfn}} together with an online ODNB is the article Elizabeth Dowdall. The cited article for Dowdall does not exist in the ODNB book (2009) but has been added in 2019 in the online version.

• OK. I see. But both print and online are used as source. Whereas I am still reluctant to list a source I have not seen and I still need to find the exact page numbers, because it is extremely unlikely there is a 100 page long entry of Bakker-Nort in the BWN. I guess we can safely assume that her full name is at the very beginning of the print version, so I just need to try and get confirmation of the actual, credible page numbers and then I can add it.Edwininlondon (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I can't find reliable page numbers. I have found here [[2]] that the print version contains "mini-biographies", so that confirms that we have a typo in the page references Google Scholar gives [[3]]: it definitely is not correct to say (pp 270-372). It seems to me that the online version is exactly the same as the print version. Huygens says that the BWN is available in city libraries, so next time I'm in the netherlands I'll be able to find out. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Early life (revisited 2nd time)

• Only paragraph, 4th sentence: She translated around 40 Danish, Norse and Swedish works - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; "Norse" seems to be a mistranslation of the Dutch "Noors" meaning "Norwegian". It seems she did not translate (old) Norse works but Norwegian works into Dutch.

• Done

Political career – 1918–1924

• Perhaps this section needs to explain the Dutch voting system of the time, so that we can understand the importance of her place on the party list and the 793 votes she got. It is known that the elections of the Dutch House of representatives were purely proportional.

• I believe that having removed details (see below), this is now no longer needed. I have added a link to candidate list.

• 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... Bakker-Nort was on the ballot for the VDB for the Eastern Division ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; The text does not explain why the VDB had two geograpic divisions and the fact is not relevant. Could this be reformulated without mentioning them?

• Done

• 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: Bakker-Nort earned 793 votes ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; IMHO the word "earned" seems an odd choice. I would have expected "obtained" but perhaps you find better. Perhaps more importantly the reader cannot understand the significance of this number of votes. One would have to know more about the proportional voting system applied. Are these "preference votes?" What was her position on the party list in the 1918 election? I found the reference at https://books.google.com/books?id=MaIdAQAAMAAJ but it is snippet view and difficult to see the context.

• I removed the detail, so earned is gone and ranking is gone.

• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... second position on the list of candidates, behind Marchant ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; I suggest "on its list of cacdidates, behind lead candidate Marchant ...".

• Done

• 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Due to serious illness, Aletta Jacobs could not take the spot and ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; I suggest stay with "position".

• Done

• 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: In her first year she introduced a private member's bill ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; Avoid Westminster terminology.

• Done

Political career – 1925–1928

• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... planned a new private member's bill to reform marriage law. - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; As before avoid Westminster terminology.

• Done

Political career – 1929–1933

• 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... Catholic parties ... - GACR Rule 1a, "understanding"; I thought there was only one Catholic party.

• The source refers to Catholic organisations, not parties. Amended.

• 1st paragraph, last sentence: ... did not alterthe principle ... - GACR Rule 1a, "spelling"; insert space: "alter the principle".

• Done

• 2nd paragraph, last sentence: ... but it failed again to be voted through ... - GACR Rule 1a "concise", "but was voted down again."

• Done

Political career – 1937–1940

• 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: ... once many Jewish refugees fled Germany. - GACR Rule 1a "concise", "... once many Jews fled Germany."

• Done

• 2nd paragraph, last sentence: ... Justice Select Committee ... - GACR Rule 1a "understanding", This committee has a strange name. I read both citations and could not find the Dutch name of the committee. Make sure it is correct.

• Parlement.com calls it "vaste commissie voor Privaat- en Strafrecht". "vaste commissie" translates into "select committee". After some research I have discovered there were other select committees for legal affairs, so that strengthens your argument for very careful translation. I have settled upon "select committee for Private and criminal law"

• Comin back to here. It seems that Google Translate and DeepL both translate "vaste commissie" to "standing committee". I must admit that I have not understood the difference between a select and a standing committee. Johannes Schade (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• You are right. I happily admit I don't understand these committees either, but after some research I think the Dutch concept best matches with standing committee. It seems to me the Dutch only had standing committees and no select. Even though there is no WP article for standing committee yet, there really should be and I will make one one day soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Imprisonment

• Only paragraph, 4th sentence: When she was made an offer to take her pension if she resigned from the House of Representatives in 1942, she was one of the few members of parliament to accept. - GACR Rule 1a "understanding", Awkwardly constructed sentence. Perhaps "In 1942 she was one of the few members of parliament who accepted an offer to resign taking their pension."

• Done

Death and legacy

• 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: ... Utrecht ... - Optional. I suggest to unlink Utrecht. It has already been linked before.

• Done

• 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... Oud ... - Optional. This is the 1st mention of Pieter Jacobus Oud, who succeeded Marchant as the leader of the VDB in 1935. I suggest to link Oud to Oud.

• Done. I added his position as former chairman.

—Beste Edwin, groete Johannes Schade (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

—Dear Edwin, please see my remark about adding the BWN in the source list added in the section "Early life revisited" above. Johannes Schade (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead (revisited 2nd time)

• Only paragraph, penultimate sentence: From 1941 she was interned ... - GACR Rule 1b (MOS:LEADNO); There seems to be a contradiction between the lead and the section "Imprisonment" of the body, which states she was arrested and imprisoned in December 1942. I wanted to look up in the cited source Klijnsma, but I have not found this text on the Internet.

• 1941 is a typo. All sources (Atria, BWN included) give 1942. The body is correct.

• Only paragraph, penultimate sentence: ... camp in Barneveld ... - GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; It seems Barneveld was not a camp but rather an accommodation or "home" for privileged Dutch Jews that were part of the Plan Frederiks.

• Home makes it sound too nice. Klijnsma calls it "special camp Barneveld" but Van Oord does not use the words Kamp Barneveld, just Barneveld and the names of the 2 buildings. Barneveld looked different from Westerbork in the sense that it was a castle, and later they put some Jews up in the nearby villa De Biezen. Source tweedekamer.nl states the building in which Bakker-Nort resided was the castle. This paper [[4]] does call it collectively camp Barneveld. As does this book [[5]]. Since this last book is written by someone who interviewed some Barneveld Jews and published by the state, it strikes me as a reliable source that needed to be added. So based on these sources I believe camp is right.

• Only paragraph, penultimate sentence: ... Theresienstadt Ghetto ... - GACR Rule 1a "understanding"; It is called "concentration camp" Theresienstadt in the body. Please standardise on the one or other.

• Done. Added a link for concentration camp.

—Groete, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see my new remark under section "Political career – 1937–1940" Groete Johannes Schade (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I did respond up there. Just trying to find page numbers now for the print version. Will report back soon. In the meantime, thanks very very much for all your suggestions and comments! Edwininlondon (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

—Dear Edwin. We are almost there. I do not understand why you say you need to cite both the paper and the web version of the BWN. I feel you can cite the BWN article "Bertha Nort" entirely from the web, cite it with {Tl|Sfn}} and put it into the source list with {{Cite web}}. Then you still need to change the birth name in the infobox from Elisabeth Nort to Bertha Nort. That is all and I can give you your GA, that we both have worked so hard for. Groete, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Dear Johannes, so sorry I misunderstood you! I think I now made the change you wanted. Right? Edwininlondon (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Dear Edwin, yes. Congratulations. This article definitively merits the GA status. It was a pleasure to work together with you. I hope to meet you again on Wikipedia. Vriendelike groete, Johannes Schade (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Dear Johannes, I am ever so grateful for all your insights and improvements. Thank you for taking the time. If you need anything on the work you are doing, say a peer review of GAN or FAC, just let me know. It was a pleasure to work with you. Bedankt! Edwininlondon (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)