Talk:Kato Svanidze/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 14:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I am happy to take a look and review this article for Good Article status. I typically go through and make initial comments as a I read, and then after these have been worked through, make a review against the templated criteria. Canada Hky (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Initial notes

This was a really interesting article to read - thank you! It is quite well-written, and I don't think it will require too much work to get to GA. A few notes:

• There is some inconsistency with the name usage, which is to be expected through transliteration and differences between alphabets. I think it could be a bit more clear, particularly in the body of the article. Stalin's previous name is identified in the lead of the article, but only noted through the wikilink in the body of the article. A parenthetical notation or footnote in the body would make this more explicit. Similarly for their son - he is Yakov in the lead and infobox, and Iakob in the later text of the article.

Added another note about Stalin's different names on the first mention of him in the article, and changed Yakov's name in the infobox. If you think it should further be modified let me know.

I think things are much clearer now, thank you!

• In the first sentence of the Svandize family section - is the Ketevan vs Ekaterine consistently utilized? Should the footnote identify 'Ketevan' as the alternate name, given that 'Ekaterine' is used in the first sentence of the lead?

Changed to use 'Ekaterine' throughout. I will note that the name 'Ketevan' is a common Georgian name, but sources do note her name was 'Ekaterine', which is decidedly less common.

• "At the time she was nearly pregnant, and while it is not known if she was aware of this, historian Stephen Kotkin has suggested this was the impetus for the wedding." - Should this be "newly pregnant"?

Yes, definitely. Changed.

• "The three sisters took up working at atelier for a French seamstress" - I am not 100% confident in my grammar here - should this be "an atelier"?

Correct, fixed.

• "Monaselidze eventually found a priest willing to perform the service, Kita Tkhinvaleli, who had also been a classmate of Jughashvili at the Seminary, though Tkinvaleli only agreed to do it if they held the wedding late at night" - some inconsistent spelling between the priests name (I am not sure which is correct), and also this could be split up into a few sentences for clarity.

The name should read 'Tkhinvaleli', and is fixed. Also broke it into two sentences to make an easier read.

• "During the burial he also reportedly threw himself into her grave, and had to be dragged out; trailed by Okhrana agents Jughashvili would flee before the service ended." - this could be split up into a couple sentences.

Done

• For clarity - in the 'Aftermath' section, could the second paragraph reorient to the fact that these are Kato's siblings?

Done

These are my early thoughts, I don't think there are any major hurdles here. The sources look good, and the formatting all looks correct. The photos are appropriate and correctly tagged, so just some tweaking of the prose, and I think we are on the path. Canada Hky (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Addressed everything here, but if you have anything else please let me know. And thanks for looking it over, glad you enjoyed it. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I do appreciate your efforts, and found the article much clearer with the changes to the names. I did not have access to the books, but with some library ad google books sources, I was able to cross check enough of the information that it seems factual and accurately represented. Canada Hky (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2019 (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):

   I was unable to check the full text of all books cited for plagiarism, so I assumed good faith there, and the facts checked out through several news articles and other sources I could find.

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):

   No issues with the images.

7. Overall: Thanks for the edits, and the opportunity to review this article.

   Pass/Fail: