Talk:Iveta Radičová/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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to take this one on for review, as it's part of Women in Green's autumn 2023 backlog. Apologies that you've had to wait so long for a review to materialise. I'm interested to learn more about Radičová, as unfortunately my entire knowledge of her up until this point has been as a footnote in the middle of Robert Fico's tenure. Good to see more women heads of government are getting the attention they deserve! --Grnrchst (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Early life

Childhood and education

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Might be worth linking to Czechoslovak Socialist Republic for "Czechoslovakia".
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] Hrm, I'm not sure that "though she has also said that her mother was quick-tempered. She has attributed her own temper to her mother, saying that it was inherited." is quite right. In the cited source, it says "Zrejme po mame podedila aj jednu významnú vlastnosť: „Veľmi dlho mi trvá, kým sa na niekoho skutočne nahnevám,“ tvrdí. „Nereagujem, hľadám dlho ospravedlnenie, že to bola len chvíľková odbočka, ale keď sa potom nahnevám, tak je zle.“ (English: Apparently, she also inherited one important trait from her mother: 'It takes me a very long time to get really angry with someone,' she says. "I don't react, I look for a long time for an excuse that it was just a momentary digression, but then when I get angry, it's wrong."). I think you may have gotten things backwards here.
  • Removed the parts about temper, not that significant either way.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• It seems like the cited sources have some more relevant information about her childhood, give them a quick once over again just to see if you think there's anything interesting worth adding.
  • Don't know how I missed the kindergarten thing, added.
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.

Academic career and activism

• Spotcheck: [4]:240 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1][5]:559 Second sentence is verified in full by both citations, [1] verifies the reference to Marxism-Leninism and [5]:559 verifies the detail about her refusal to join the party.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:240 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:241 Verified.
• To be honest, I think you could merge these two citations into [4]:240–241, as they're both pulling from the same paragraph.
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [4]:240 Cited source says "Social Policy Analysis Center", is there any reason you have it written as "Center for Social Policy Analysis"? Otherwise all verified.
  • Fixed.
• Spotcheck: [5]:559 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find where in the source it says that she "did not officially join [the ODS]". Indeed, she appears to have been very influential in its founding.
  • „Hoci pomáhala budovať slovenské štruktúry, nemala v strane žiadnu pozíciu,“ rozpamätáva sa Kaník. ("Although she helped build Slovak structures, she had no position in the party," recalls Kaník.) Changed to more closely reflect this.
• You should probably mention the political orientation of the Civic Democratic Party.
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [5]:559–560 Verified.
• Any more information that we can include about her opposition to Mečiar?
  • Seems like it was just a simple case of she was pro-democracy and he was not.
• Spotcheck: [4]:240 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:240 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
  • Side comment: Oh good grief, the tabloidy headline and the entire tone of the article cited here made me gag. You're clearly communicating the facts from it but idk, I don't like that it's cited like this. If it's possible to replace this with a better source, please do.
    • Yeah, now that you mention it, this would probably be considered an unreliable source if it were in English. Replaced both instances.

Political career

Entering Parliament

• Some context for Dzurinda's election would be good. It's included in the source, so even a wee sentence would be helpful.
  • Added.
• Spotcheck: [4]:241 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified. There's a bit more in this source that I think you could include, if you see anything worth putting in.
• Spotcheck: [4]:242.
• Don't think the use of "but" here is necessary, as it implies a contradiction where there isn't any. She ran on the SDKU list, then became a member later.
  • Fixed.
• I think the use of "deputy chairwoman" might imply that the chairperson above her was also a woman. Is this the case? If not, I'd recommend neutralising it to "deputy chair" or "deputy chairperson".
  • Changed to deputy chair.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:242 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Any information about her activities between 2006 and 2009, other than the positions she held? Think it would be important information to include.
  • I added a sentence explaining that she was unable to pass legislation during this period.

2009 presidential campaign

• Spotcheck: [4]:242–243 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [5]:573 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [5]:573–574 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:243–244 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [5]:573 Verified.
• Side comment: Good job neutralising the nationalist weirdness on display in this paragraph. It's shocking the stuff that was thrown at her.
• "She lost the election" Would be more accurate to say she lost the runoff, I think?
  • Fixed.
• Spotcheck: [4]:242 Verified.

Resignation and reelection

• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• "Radičová illegally cast a vote" Think "illegally" implies that this was against the law, but it seems she just broke parliamentary rules?
  • Changed.
• Spotcheck: [4]:244 Verified.
• Think "competition" seems a bit informal, not so politicky. Contest maybe?
  • Changed.
• Should be clarified that the Social Democratic party was governing at this point in time.
  • Added.
• Spotcheck: [4]:245 Verified.

Prime Minister of Slovakia

• Spotcheck: [4]:245 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:245 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:246 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:245 Verified.
• "Radičová was unable to see most of her policy objectives enacted" Hrm, might be worth moving this into the next subsection? We're not currently aware what her government's policy objectives were.
  • Moved.
• Spotcheck: [4]:246 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:245 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:245–246 Verified.
• Worth linking to European integration.
  • Linked.

Policies

• Spotcheck [4]:246 Verified.
• Is "IStockAnalyst" a reliable source? I've never come across it before in my life.
  • Probably not, but it's a duplicate of the Irish Times source, so I swapped it out.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified, although a bit too closely paraphrased at points for comfort.
  • Reworded.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified, although the link you're using is broken. This one is still live.
  • Replaced.
• Spotcheck: [4]:246 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:247 Verified.
• Again, I think the above two citations could be merged into [4]:246–247.
  • Merged.
• Spotcheck: [4]:246 Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4]:247 Verified.

Post-premiership

• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
• It's odd that this is the first reference to Robert Fico, seeing as he's the person that both preceded and succeeded her as prime minister.
  • Added mentions of him as both predecessor and successor.
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [16] Verified. Again, gag-worthy article. If there's something less gossipy and tabloidy about this, that would be a good replacement.
  • Nothing else came up in English or Slovak, which tells me it's probably not significant. Removed.

References

• Worth linking to Týždeň, Sme, Korzár, Plus jeden deň, The Slovak Spectator and The Irish Times for their respective citations.
  • Done.
• Be sure to include access dates for all web sources, they're currently missing for [1] and [10].
  • How does a post facto access date work? Am I supposed to put today's date, or the date it was first added?
• Provide title translations for Slovak sources, where there aren't any.
  • Done.
• Citation [12] needs more detail, it's currently unclear what exactly this is linking to.

Lead and infobox

• Not sure her husband dying in 2005 is necessary to include in the lead.
  • Removed.
• Information is repeated between the first and second paragraphs. Think you could cut the later sentences of the first paragraph, allow the second paragraph to stand by itself a bit more, and maybe rearrange some information about her government to be more chronological.
  • Trimmed the lead a little.
• Her birth name "Iveta Karafiátová" should be included in the infobox.
  • Added.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All the prose is excellent, very well-written. I only have minor notes on wording and clarity.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Seems to comply completely with the manual of style.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Some sources need formatting changes, but otherwise all good.

   B. 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):

   I'm not so sure about the reliability of Plus jeden deň, which is very gossipy tabloid style fare. I'm sure the information is all accurate, but if better sources could be provided for it, that'd be great.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research that I can see, although one case of (I think) a mistranslation.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig flags some close paraphrasing from IStockAnalyst,[1] which I mentioned above. No apparent close paraphrasing from the Slovak language sources or plagiarism from the other English sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There seem to be some gaps in the timeline, and there's certainly some interesting information that has been left out from the sources. Give the sources another look over to see if there's anything else that could be added in to fill some of these gaps.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused, no issues here.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Extremely neutral, even in parts where provocative statements are being made or non-neutral sources are being cited.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No reversions since 2016, no major changes since GA nomination.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images have valid Creative Commons licenses or are in the Public Domain.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant to the subject, although I think the one with Hilary Clinton might be worth cutting, as her diplomacy with the United States is not mentioned in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This was a very interesting article to read, and I'm glad I took the time to. I think there are some issues, mostly with broadness, that are holding this back from a quick pass. Feel free to ping me once you feel you've addressed everything. Thanks so much for taking the time to write this. Excellent work as always. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Grnrchst I've responded to each point above. Props on the spot checks by the way; I think I would keel over if I spotchecked that many sources! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for seeing to everything, I'm more than happy to pass this now. Great work! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2024 (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.