Talk:Clara Stauffer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 09:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• No infobox?

• I know lots of editors have opinions about it, but I've always been indifferent as to whether articles have infoboxes or not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "she was one of the most influential smugglers" Is "influential" the right word here? Who did she influence?

• Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Early life and Spanish Civil War

• "while her time in Madrid involved heavy participation in the city's high society." Bit oddly worded. Suggest: "while also spending time among Madrid's high society." or something similar.

• Changed to your wording. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "She was a member of the Sección Femenina" Any detail on how she came to join the Falange? It's currently a bit jarring going from her athleticism to her political activity without much context.

• Spotcheck:

  "Accompanied by her closest collaborators, Clarita Stauffer and María García Ontiveros, and other SF leaders, she was using this trip to make a public statement of her support for closer Hispano-German ties."

  Ok so this source doesn't mention her joining, this is about her already being in the SF during the second world war.

• On this article, I incorporated just about everything I found. Unless I'm missing something obvious, there isn't a huge wealth of sources about Clara Stauffer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ok, if there's nothing else about this in the sources, then there's not much more that can be done. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• I am very uncomfortable with us citing the Falange's newspaper in this article, least of all as it's a questionable, non-independent source. Check if any independent, reliable sources have information on Stauffer being the Falange's foreign relations head. If they do, replace the source. If they don't, then I'd strongly recommend removing this detail. Given it's such a short detail, I don't think much would be lost in its removal.

• Spotcheck: I looked through all of the other cited reliable sources, and none of them seem to mention this. I also checked the Spanish Wikipedia article and it doesn't reference the claim or use the FE. So I'd strongly recommend removal.

• I added it during a search of all the primary sources I could find, but I agree, and I've removed it. Unfortunately, this is hardly standard practice on Wikipedia; I know you edit with WP:ANARCHISM a lot, and I'm sure you've noticed that a lot of those articles include sources that have similar associations with anarchist groups. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Aye, this is actually something I (and others in the project) have been trying to cut down on. I'm losing track of how many articles I've basically had to TNT and re-do from scratch because of this issue. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nazi collaboration

• There's quite a few red links within inter-language links here. Are you confident that these are all potentially notable subjects?

• Hilfsverein appears to just be the generic German word for "relief organisation", I'm not sure it's referring to anything specific here.
• There's a potential inter-language link to the Spanish and German Wikipedia articles for Johannes Bernhardt.

• I've changed these two links. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "She was effectively operating a charity drive, collecting food and clothes for Nazi fugitives."

• Spotcheck: Cited page 493 never uses such terms, although page 491 does use the term "charitable activities." This sentence could also be moved down to the subsequent paragraph, as the source is clearly talking about her aiding internees at Sobrón.

• "in the capacity of a charitable organization." Ditto as above. Page 493 doesn't describe her activities at Sobrón as "charity", although page 491 does.

• Removed the first instance as repetitive and fixed the citation for the second. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• "January 23, 1945" Article has been tagged for using DMY, so this should be changed to "23 January 1945".

• Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• Might be worth briefly going over the fate of some of the Nazis she helped escape.

• This is the kind of thing where I'd rather include if it was talking about "her" Nazis as a whole rather than individual examples. Describing Eichmann's trial, for example, would be going a bit out of scope, and it might be misleading if that's not representative of what happened to the hundreds of other Nazis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• That's fair. I appreciate that if there's not a meta-analysis of it then it might be a bit difficult to include something like this. I agree that it's important to keep the scope on target. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Consider adding links to La Vanguardia, CTXT, Contemporary European History. Also consider linking to publishers.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   I must insist on the removal of the FE newspaper as a source. Under no circumstances can this be considered reliable. Problematic source removed.

   c. (OR):

   A couple cases where the wrong page is cited. Pages and page ranges should be double-checked. Page issues dealt with.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Could do with a bit more in the legacy section regarding the consequences of her actions. Also worth looking into how/why she joined the Falange in 1936.

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Image is in the public domain

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image could do with alt-text.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Holding until issues are addressed. Questionable source must be removed before I can even consider passing this. Ideally some extra context could also be added to fill out the article more. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Grnrchst, I've replied to all of your notes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Fabulous. Thanks for covering all this! I'll pass the review the now. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)