Talk:Federated Legion of Women

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Federated Legion of Women/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 21:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I will begin the review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• The lede is used to summarize the contents of the article (per WP:LEDE), hence the alternative names by which the Legion was known should be moved to the main body where they will have citations to back them up.

• Remove the sections of the empty sections of the infobox, unless you can fill them.

• Can you write a really short paragraph about how and when the Paris Commune came to be and who they were fighting against? Right now there is no explanation as to why they were pursuing deserters among other things. The ideology of the communards also contextualizes the reason why women were allowed to fight.

• Translation of the term in parentheses after citoyennes.

• 12th legion → 12th Legion

• Wikilink bourgeois.

• "They wore a uniform with a red armband and belt" - Then why does the picture of the colonel

• When you are citing multiple pages use pp. instead of p.

• Since they were mainly tasked with arresting deserters you can add the Category:Military police units and formations and military police in role.

• What's a mayor's delegate?

• Can you translate the caption of the last image into English?

• Please also translate the article titles in the Bibliography from French to English. You can use |trans-title= for that.

• Page number for ref 4?

• Since ref 24 is a book you might as well move it to Bibliography with the rest of them.--Catlemur (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oh shoot, I didn't watchlist this page properly and didn't realize I was leaving you hanging. I've made the smaller changes and will do the short paragraph probably tomorrow. Small changes I did not do, or otherwise thought could use some explanation:

  • Wikilink bourgeois. I don't think I'd revert someone who did this, but I don't think the Bourgeoisie article is a helpful link here
  • "They wore a uniform with a red armband and belt" - Then why does the picture of the colonel I can't ask Bertall; he's dead. But since these are intended as unflattering caricatures, I would hazard a guess that he's drawn it in this way because it is intended to mock the idea of a woman army officer.
  • Since they were mainly tasked with arresting deserters you can add the Category:Military police units and formations and military police in role. No, this would be misleading, as no source refers to them as military police as far as I am aware.
  • What's a mayor's delegate? As far as I can tell this is just the concept you get when you stick "mayor" and "delegate" together. fr-wiki doesn't have a page on it (unsurprising as the Commune didn't last very long). I reworded it a bit, but that's all I've got. Maitron calls him part of "la délégation communale du XIIe arr." in another article. So, some kind of local official who reports to the mayor.
  • Page number for ref 4? It's his thesis, so no page number - that's the argument of the whole article.

Then you can pick a random page range from it.--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• -- asilvering (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, context paragraph about the Commune done! Back to you. -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Good job on the intro paragraph, can you add a reference to back it up?--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Please translate the titles from ref 24 and the first Thomas book.

• All alternative names for the Legion need to be backed by a reliable source and be mentioned in the main body of the article as well.

• Fontoulieu and both of Thomas' books are not cited in the article. You can either move them to Further reading or delete them.--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  • First Thomas book: the second one is the translation, but additionally, the title is just "The petroleuses", so nothing to translate. I've removed the series name, if that was throwing you off?
  • Other stuff: sorted.

  -- asilvering (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

All sorted, grats on covering this very interesting topic.--Catlemur (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: --Catlemur (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)