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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   I have highlighted a few prose issues below; overall, though, it is clear and well-written in accordance with WP:SS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is very well-referenced. However, I notice that some books are listed as references with no page numbers. That's okay for a GA, since most of your references do have page numbers, but would probably be frowned upon in a FA review.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   You almost there! See the below comments about Latin America and France, and also the literature section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The tone is admirably neutral, sticking to the facts and not using Wikipedia's voice to make any objectionable claims. A possible concern might be that not enough space is given to opposing views (the Reactions section is quite short), but the note on the talk page says it's okay.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems okay; page is semi-protected because of vandalism, but that's to be expected.

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below comment about File:8marta.jpg

7. Overall: I am placing this article on hold for seven days. This article is very close to being a GA, and reviewing it was a pleasure - I learned a lot. :) The main issues that need to be addressed are the prose, especially in the lead, and broadness of coverage. The comments below address a few other things, but they are intended to more as suggestions for further improvement than requirements for GA status. Happy editing!

   Pass/Fail:

Wow, you guys are amazing! There is always something to improve, but the article is now manifestly of GA quality. I am passing it. Thank you so much for all your hard work! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Structure: Consider placing the discussion of third-wave feminism before post-feminism, and also mentioning post-feminism in the History section where you have the overview of the three waves.
• Broadness of coverage: You did an excellent job of introducing a global perspective in the discussions of first- and second-wave feminism, but the "Late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries" section seems US-centric. What is going on in the rest of the world right now?
• Broadness of coverage: I appreciate the difficulties of balancing length with comprehensiveness, but you include some information on feminism in Latin America? Maybe you could the move the sentence about Latin America under the "Socialism" section up here to the history section.
• Images/broadness of coverage: Similarly, you have a picture some Parisian suffragettes, but France is not even mentioned in the article body. Can this be remedied?
• Theoretical schools: The second paragraph seems be entirely about literary theory. You need to place this paragraph in the context of feminist theory in general, showing us why a discussion of literary theory is appropriate here.
• Literature: Somehow the literature section seems incomplete. The first paragraph is good, but the second two seem overly specific, giving the names of a few important feminist texts instead of describing the general development of feminist literature as a whole. The entire period from 1818 until the 1960s is skipped over. Giving a whole paragraph of feminist science fiction is also unexpected - how important is science fiction in relation to the broader feminist movement? With such a broad topic, it is important to use article space efficiently, so ask yourself if that paragraph is really necessary.
• Distinction between sex and gender: You tell us what the distinction is, but not why it matters or how it relates to feminism. This paragraph should be either expanded or removed.
• References: "A Room of One's Own" is cited with no page numbers. References to lengthy works should tell the reader where to find the cited material. Actually, several other references have the same problem; see above.
• Science: This is my own personal POV, so feel free to ignore. However, the first two paragraphs of this section are so wildly at odds with the general stream of scientific thought as I understand it that I had to read it a few times in order to make sure that it was really saying what I thought it was saying, and the resulting cognitive dissonance was a little jarring. Could you include a sentence or two explaining how these ideas differ from the traditional scientific view, and what the response of the scientific community to these ideas has been?
• Lead: The lead, ideally, should summarize the entire article; since your topic here is so broad that may be difficult, but it would be nice if you could at least mention feminism's effects on society, since that is a major part of the article.
• Culture: Have you considered including information about the visual arts?
• Movements and ideologies: The variety here is a bit bewildering, even overwhelming. I don't if there's a way to fix this, but maybe it's something you can think about. :)

Specific comments

• You may want to add Template:Feminism sidebar to the lead.
• Lead: Feminist theory exists in a variety of disciplines, emerging from these feminist movements and including general theories and theories about the origins of inequality, and, in some cases, about the social construction of sex and gender. This sentence doesn't flow very well. It might read better if change it to something like: Feminist theory, emerging from these feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women's social roles and lived experience, developing theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of sex and gender.
• Lead: such as in contract - this doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean contract law?
• Lead: Feminist activists have campaigned for women's rights—such as in contract, property, and voting — while also promoting women's rights to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights. The repetition of women's rights is a little off-putting here.
• History: The second paragraph of "history" describes the three waves of feminism by saying that each wave "refers to" something. Does it change the meaning if you simply say "the first wave was..."? This would help make the prose more direct.
• History: Second paragraph of "Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" section: this is a run-on sentence.
• Prose: criticized it using generalizations. Should this be criticized it for using generalizations?
• Structure: Section "Theoretical schools": is there a reason for not calling this section "Feminist theory" or just "Theory"? The current terminology suggests that you are going to discuss several competing schools of thought.
• Political: In the U.S., feminism, when politically active, formerly aligned largely with the political right, e.g., through the National Woman's Party, from the 1910s to the 1960s, and presently aligns largely with the left, e.g., through the National Organization for Women, of the 1960s to the present, although in neither case has the alignment been consistent. I count ten commas in this sentence. It might be best to remove this sentence entirely and replace it with something that more directly introduces the topic of feminism's relationship to political movements.
• Pro-feminism: The last sentence should either occur earlier in the paragraph or be removed; it seems like it is repeating information already mentioned.
• Civil rights: The final paragraph repeats information already given in the second paragraph.
• Images: Is File:8marta.jpg public domain in the US? I assume the creator is unknown, and I don't know how that effects the copyright status, if at all.
• Fascism: a state ideology that, in glorifying women, becomes anti-feminist. Perhaps this is meant to be counter-intuitive, but I don't understand it. Could you elaborate?
• Movements and ideologies: some socialist feminists disagree. and has branched into such as anti-pornography feminism, opposed by sex-positive feminism. I'm not sure what your intended meaning is here.
• Sexuality: Why is the first paragraph in the past tense?

Notes

• All the specific issues are now  Done --Cailil ^talk 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• All the amendments required under 'General comments' are now  Done, except for: a) the first 'Broadness of coverage' point which is  Partly done; and b) the point about theoretical schools, which is  Partly done--Cailil ^talk 23:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]