Talk:Marie Rennotte

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marie Rennotte/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 02:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article, most of the work starting tomorrow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

General comments / Lede

Over all, you have a very nice writing style! Most of my comments below are a bit nitpicky.

Thanks CaroleHenson I'm totally good with nitpicky, as it's the little stuff that often gets missed. SusunW (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• It would be nice to find a little better image of Rennotte, or see if someone can improve the quality of the image that is there. Or, maybe make it smaller so that perhaps it would look better compressed a bit. I don't know. I realize that it might be hard to find a good published image -- and you are so thorough, I am guessing you already tried. Any thoughts?

There is a better picture, this one. The problem is that I cannot determine when it might have been published. Since I cannot upload a fair-use photo if there is a free one available, I am at a loss. If you have any ideas, I'm glad to try. SusunW (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I posted a message at Commons graphics lab and included the link to the better image as well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool SusunW (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence seems a little awkward: "The school was an innovative institution which promoted girls' education as equal to that of boys, offering co-educational instruction" Does it sound better to state "The co-educational school was an innovative institution which promoted girls' education as equal to that of boys."?

Made it simpler "The co-educational school was an innovative institution offering equal education to girls and boys."  Done SusunW (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• When I read "In 1889, Rennotte, on a scholarship provided by the state, enrolled in medical school at the Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia." I thought the state was Pennsylvania, but in the body of the article it says São Paulo. Should that be added to the sentence?

 Done SusunW (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding "Upon her return to Brazil, she defended her thesis" perhaps link "defended her thesis" to Thesis defence or directly to Thesis#Thesis examinations.

 Done SusunW (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding "She also saw patients both in the hospital and in private homes, assisting with births" - I don't understand the phrase "assisting with births" - did she assist other physicians? Or, is the point that she provided obstetrical service in private homes?

She wasn't assisting other physicians, but rather mothers. Changed it to "delivering babies".  Done SusunW (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Should "paying" or another word be used in this sentence to differentiate from dispensary patients: "Opening her own practice after she resigned from the Maternity Hospital, she operated a dispensary for the poor and immigrant communities, while continuing to see paying patients."

 Done SusunW (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Is "She conducted research at the surgery of the Santa Casa da Misericórdia on the effects of chloroform as an anesthetic from 1906 to 1910 and then traveled to Europe to study how to establish a Red Cross Branch in São Paulo." better as two sentences?

 Done SusunW (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Should "latter" or another word be added to this sentence: " She continued to practice medicine through the mid-1920s, but increasingly in the latter 1920s and 1930s... Or maybe the point is that there is an overlap in time and "latter" is not needed.

 Done SusunW (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps add a link to feminist movement in the same sentence (I know it needs some work and is western centric, though).

 Done SusunW (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think that due to MOS:CITELEAD the last two sentences should be cited, because they are both making a claim.

They are, but the information is cited in the body, so it is simply a summary. An additional citation seems redundant to me, as the claims aren't likely to be challenged. If you google feminism or suffrage in Brazil prior to 1930, her name is prominent in the results. I will cite if it you think it is necessary, but my preference is not to do so. SusunW (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Since they are claims, I think that they should be cited according to CITELEAD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done SusunW (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am a little confused about the best approach for identifying words that are Portuguese, like state the English version first and parenthetically identify the Portuguese version. I think there is another nomenclature but I have used something like: "Paulistan Alliance for Women's Suffrage (Portuguese: Aliança Paulista pelo Sufrágio Feminino), as stated in MOS:FORLANG.

Interesting, I have never thought about it on that basis. I use WP:COMMONNAME as the rationale for almost all of the articles I write (and obviously most of them are international women's articles). On that basis, I get 1 hit for Paulistan Alliance... (this article), but for the Portuguese name I get 86,200 results. So, I usually list the common name first and then a translation into English. Obviously to me the order makes no difference as long as both versions are there so that people have the common name. I'm willing to do it either way, but if we change it here, we'll need to change it throughout the article. SusunW (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

After I started reading the Medicine section, I started to think that it would be too busy to add the language in some way. It's probably better just to leave it the way it is. I like your COMMONNAME approach, by the way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know if you disagree or have an alternate approach.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Early life

• The section looks good, the only thing is now we have use of the French language. (I am just checking the content right now, I will swing back through for a review of sources to content later.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

See above explanation: 6 hits for "Normal School of Liège" vs. 24,800 results for "l'École normale de Liège"; 65,900 results for "Society for Elementary Education", France vs. 72,000 results for "Société pour l'Instruction Élémentaire". SusunW (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let's leave it as-is.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Career § Teaching

• 1st paragraph: Should "French and German language" be plural?

Good catch!  Done SusunW (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph: I don't understand "Rennotte's initial attraction, according to Watts, was her ability to speak French." Is this meaning that Watts was initially physically attracted to Rennotte? Or, the initial attraction for employment?

Oh my, employment, uff! Changed to "qualification for the post"  Done SusunW (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph: Link abolitionists and masons?

 Done SusunW (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph: Regarding the articles that she wrote, were they all about traditional education for women?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't really know, the text says she favored equality in school, rational thought and teaching girls science. She was critical of Catholicism and the way it infused every aspect of life. About publishing specifically, it says: "Publicou, nesse período, muitos textos num tom que hoje diríamos panfletário nos jornais Gazeta de Piracicaba, A Província de São Paulo, O Estado de São Paulo, Diário Popular, Correio Paulistano, Município, A Mensageira e A Família, um dos principais periódicos feministas de então." She published many texts...pretty ambiguous, and while one of them was a feminist journal, I think it would be OR to conclude that the articles were feminist, about education, or against the church based on the source. SusunW (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's leave as is. No need for conjecture - I agree that would be OR. I was just wondering.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Thank you so much for the review. I really appreciate the detailed feedback. I love different perspectives, as they challenge our preconceptions and always make for a better article. SusunW (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure! I feel the same way. I will get back to the Medicine section. I don't think I was finding much there, but I am going to read it again.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Career § Medicine

• It may be a style thing, but what do you think about a change from "Rennotte opened her own clinic in her home" to "Rennotte opened a clinic in her home"?

 Done SusunW (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Another thought for consideration: "addressing the inclusion of women in the medical profession in various countries" to "advocating the world-wide acceptance of women in the medical professions"

 Done SusunW (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• What do you think about rewording: "Also in 1905, she became a member of the Associação Feminina Beneficente e Instrutiva (Women's Benevolent and Instructive Association), founded by Anália Franco [pt],[32] an organization which created nurseries and schools, operated professional training workshops, and established orphanages to assist poor and working women throughout the state of São Paulo." So that "an organization" follows the name of the organization?

 Done SusunW (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Re: "During World War I, Rennotte trained Red Cross volunteers and in the 1918 influenza pandemic" what do you think of "and during the 1918"... I also wondered if any of the trained nurses traveled with her.

Changed to during, but don't know if she was accompanied by anyone. The text says "Em 1918, durante a epidemia de gripe espanhola, depois de se recuperar da doença, fechou emporariamente o consultório e, seguindo os preceitos da Cruz Vermelha de fornecer ajuda aos necessitados em caso de calamidade pública, foi socorrer as vítimas na cidade de Dois Córregos, interior do Estado..." which makes it sound to me as if she went alone. SusunW (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, is this woman impressive or what? Great read!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I know! Totally stumbled across her by accident and then just had to write about her. The women in this period, who history has omitted are fascinating to me. They were amazingly independent and unafraid to try new experiences and push boundaries. SusunW (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely! She was fearless and undaunted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• What do you think of having a separate paragraph for the legacy information?

I have an aversion to 2 sentence paragraphs ;), but if you think I should separate it, I will. SusunW (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought about that, but the last paragraph is technically 2 sentences and it would be nice to have all the Legacy info together. I am absolutely not going to lose sleep over this. I will leave it to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think it might read better to move "From 1882 to 1925, Rennotte published articles on benevolence, education, medicine, and women's issues.[44]" to after the sentence "She is remembered for her role" so it leads into the feminist writers sentence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done SusunW (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Good article criteria

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.	The article is well-written and understandable. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It complies with manual of style guidelines and the rest of the criteria for this item.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
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.	It provides references to all sources of information in a proper layout.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	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).	There are inline citations from reliable sources. There is a bit of use of primary sources, but it is balanced and backed up by information from secondary sources. Htere is no information that seems like it would be considered contentious or likely to be challenged.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no evidence of original research. All content is properly cited.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I am not seeing evidence of plagarism, and have a couple of suggestions for scrambling word order and two missing cities from the cited sources. See comments section below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC) There are no issues here, per comments sectiony. And, moving to "passed".–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It addresses the main aspects of the topic.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It stays focused on the topic and does not go into unnecessary detail.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is neutral.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
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.	All images are tagged with licensing. Beyond that: Added a few links to image captions. Tried change the contrast and exposure for the Colégio Piracicabano image. Have a request in to Commons graphics group to see if they can enhance the main image.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are pertinent to the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

For the copyvio check, I am using Google translate where I can.

• For the Mott source: It would be good to scramble the order of these words, so they are not in the same order as the source: "better employment, health and citizenship"

 Done SusunW (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am not seeing Mannheim on page 44. I do see that she taught in Germany on that page, though. Same with Werneck that is cited to the same page, but I don't see it.

You are correct, Mott p. 44 only says Germany, which is why the second citation to the Belgian Club is given, as it pinpoints the location to Mannheim. Werneck is not cited to Mott, but rather to Costa Ramires, p 60. (I did just check it and p. 60 is correct). SusunW (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• On page 49, I don't see a mention of going to private homes, but I may have missed it in the translation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Mott, on page 49, confirms that she was hired as a staff physician at the hospital; then the 2nd citation to De Luca & Assis De Luca on p 710 says: "Testemunha ocular dessa atuação, Jorge Americano relata, em suas memórias, que figuras notórias como a parteira madame Laborde e a doutora Rennotte chegavam às residências de seus clientes em tílburis, carregando volumoso instrumental obstétrico; contribuíram, assim, para alimentar a crença infantil de que as crianças recém-nascidas não se originavam de suas mães: eram trazidas para suas casas dentro daquelas bojudas maletas." Basically they arrived at their clients' homes with bags and equipment which made people think the babies arrived in the bags. SusunW (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, thanks! Excellent. Funny - about the bags.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I checked the English language sources where I could, except Hahner. That page is not available to me. Otherwise, content from the English language sources and citing look good.

What pages you have access to depends on where you are (and the day of the week or maybe how you are holding your mouth?) I cannot access Hahner today either, but this (p 187) confirms that Catt went immediately after the convention to São Paulo to found the alliance. Though it's in Portuguese, I am sure you can make it out, "Imediatamente após a convenção, a visita de Carrie Chapman Catt …coincidiu com a fundação da Aliança Paulista pelo Sufrágio Feminino". SusunW (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am not finding any crucial issues. It looks like you've done a good job taking information from the sources and the sources are good. So, I will trust you on the Portuguese sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's why I have Ian in my arsenal. If I can't be sure of what a source says, I ask the master polyglot. :) SusunW (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We are rounding the bend! The only thing that I have as open items are the first three bullets in this section and then we're done!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a general thought to consider: There are a lot of red links... and when I search to see if there are references to other articles, I am only finding a few where they are mentioned outside of this article.

I have a general rule not to add red links unless it seems like it would link to more than one article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I err on the side of inclusion, simply because if indeed those articles are written it will link women to other articles, better integrating them into the encyclopedia. If there is an article in another language version, or if a Google search indicates there are sufficient sources to prove notability, I include it. Our coverage in en.wp on Brazil is definitely wanting, which is a good part of why there are so many red links, but even missing articles like Anna Martha Fullerton, who was in charge of the Women's Hospital of Philadelphia to me say why red links are needed. SusunW (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

That's ok. I just thought I would throw it out there for consideration.

Well, it looks like we are done and now is passed status! Yeah!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review CaroleHenson. It was a total pleasure to work with you to improve the article. SusunW (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! You were very patient and lovely to work with as well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Family life?

Came to this article to find out about her family life - and there's no information about this at all.

Did she marry? Did she have children? Etc.

Newzild (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Newzild, I don't think she married or had children. I didn't see anything that I can remember about her personal or social life. I will poke around a bit and add something if I find it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Newzild As far as I was able to ascertain, she never married and never had any children. SusunW (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Newzild (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)