Talk:Miriam Soljak

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Miriam Soljak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DanCherek (talk · contribs) 23:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article! I'll review this; comments to come soon. DanCherek (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for picking it up DanCherek. Looking forward to collaborating to improve it. Couldn't have done it without help for sourcing from the Resource Exchange ;) SusunW (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm on the hunt for one more piece of information (and possibly a photo). I've been corresponding with one of her grand-daughters, who informed me that through another of Miriam's children, Sean Fitzpatrick of the New Zealand national rugby union team is a great grandson of Miriam. So far only source I have found to confirm that other than the grand-daughter is this, which I am not sure about using for a GA. SusunW (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree that the MyHeritage blog isn't an ideal source and I think it would be fine to omit that particular piece of information from the article unless you're able to track down a better source. DanCherek (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to support the MyHeritage blog as a fine Wikipedia:Reliable source in this case. It's not self-published, it's a company mouthpiece, and the company MyHeritage, which is 19 years old, and is known internationally, specializes in exactly this, who is descended from whom. They're staking their reputation on this, and it's a good reputation. --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the reliability per se, but for a piece of trivia like "This rugby player is her great-grandson!", the fact that it's only published in this company's blog and nowhere else indicates to me that it likely doesn't merit inclusion in the article, especially when it doesn't seem to add to the reader's understanding of Soljak's life, work, or legacy. DanCherek (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I plan on wrapping up my initial review within the next day, thanks for your patience. Regarding "people fail to understand the importance of links", my opinion above is merely that—my opinion—since you seemed to be asking for it. I'm not going to object if you add it to the article. DanCherek (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Not to worry DanCherek. If the links are there at least somewhere the algorithms will change. I know this for certain, as I have been working all year on women's nationality issues. When I started it was incredibly difficult to find any articles on the topic. The more I work on the topic, the more links have started to appear in the search engines of multiple browsers. The reason I wanted to include it is because her granddaughter asked me to do it. She also just sent me a mail that she is working with her dad to release the photograph on p. 14 of the archive for Peter and Miriam. She has been very generous in helping improve the article and so I think showing the link is important to keep her trust. Works perfectly fine to go from him to her and I get your reasoning. When you finish is fine, I'm working on Malawi. SusunW (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Review

• Consider including "Bridelia" in the first sentence of the lead ("Miriam Bridelia Soljak" per [1])

 Done SusunW (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "a campaign that would last for nearly thirty years" → suggest "a campaign that lasted for nearly thirty years"

 Done SusunW (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Other campaigns she was involved..." this is a really, really long sentence, of course reflecting all of the important campaigns she was a part of, but I worry that the long list will cause readers to gloss over it. Is it possible to break it up a bit into varied sentences so it's not a listing of a dozen causes?

I've given it a go, see if you think it is better? SusunW (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, great! DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Page 1998 indicates she was one of eight children, while Page 1991 indicates one of seven children... weird discrepancy for two works from the same author. I'm guessing you noticed this and found eight to be the more accurate figure?

Complicated. My research actually shows 9 siblings, but I don't have a source that says that (Marianne (1865-1955), Henrietta (1869-1956), Arthur (1871-1960), Annie (1876-1926), Miriam (1879-1971), Bertha (1881-1922), Leonard (1884-1968), Dorothy (1886-1888), Kathleen (1891-1948).) But, it would not be uncommon to leave out Dorothy, as she did not live to maturity. So, I took it to mean that she grew up with eight siblings. Clearly not 7. SusunW (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "also shown as Pakaru": should that be "also known as" or is that just a phrase I'm not familiar with?

Well, that's another complicated thing. I searched it and sometimes it is called one thing and other times another. I find nada that actually places it on a map or clarifies what the true name of the place is. (But that could just be because I am searching from Mexico?) That word means the same as "Fubar" or broken, and it is also used as a name, but that doesn't help me identify a place. This indicates that there is a plain with the name. Page 1991 calls it Pakaru, but newspapers call it Pukuru or Pukaru. I have no idea if it is actually Pokuru, New Zealand, but that doesn't seem right as if it was/is indeed near Kawakawa, then it is in the Northland Region. I'm quite happy to have suggestions, but honestly don't know how to figure out what the name should be. SusunW (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see the difficulty, and didn't glean too much from my own search. I think giving both names as you did in the article is good. DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "During World War I, when her seventh child, Paul, was born in 1919": technically, World War I ended in 1918

Changed to "Soon after World War I ended.  Done SusunW (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "provided that the status of British subject would be": something is not quite right grammatically here but I'm not sure how it should best be presented so wanted to consult you. Should it be "status of a British subject" or "status of British subjects" or "statuses of British subjects"?

I replaced it with nationality. Unfortunately, there isn't a better word to avoid using nationality redundantly, because though in Commonwealth Countries citizenship is synonymously used they are two different legal terms. The first is defines the relationship in international law of a person and their state (belonging) and the second defines the relationship in domestic law for the rights and privileges one receives from the state and owes to the state. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "revocation of an enemy alien's status": this phrase was a little confusing to me; looking at the source, I think "revocation" is referring to revocation of British nationality, which is what I also think you meant while writing the sentence, but as written it sounds like it's referring to revocation of alien-ship, if that makes sense. Perhaps replacing the word "status" with "nationality" would help?

 Done SusunW (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1928, Peter naturalised": the preceding two sentences are about Peter Fraser, maybe clarify Peter Soljak?

 Done SusunW (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note 1 lists six children but Paul was previously described as their seventh child? This source also states six children

"when her seventh child, Paul, was born" — Paul was Miriam's 7th child. Dorothea Grace (born 1905) was not Peter's biological child, as confirmed by her grand daughter, but I have no RS that says that. (The legal position at the time was that she could only not have required naturalization if she was born legitimately to a British father or outside of wedlock to a British mother.) Page confirms Grace's birth in 1905 and the naturalization cert shows Peter's children, but giving more than that info seemed to be OR territory, as most sources name her Grace Soljak. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I see, that was my mistake. Thanks! (And very interesting.) DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "president of the women's branch of the Labour Party": should clarify that this was the Auckland women's branch (which I'm guessing is distinct from the national women's branch?)

 Done SusunW (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• There's a decent number of sentences in the Political activism section about her disagreements with Peter, their separation, his refusal to pay her, their divorce, and the fact that she didn't recover her nationality; do you think it's worth a mention in the lead?

Yes, it got pretty messy and I'm not sure all of that should be in the lede, but I've added "Despite their divorce in 1939, Soljak was unable to recover her British nationality." Does that work? SusunW (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Great! DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "That year she worked on the Auckland Unemployed Women's Emergency Committee": based on the source, the year refers to 1931, but this is not clear in the article

 Done SusunW (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Passes checks for copyvio, article stability, image licensing

Really nice job on this article. I loved learning about Soljak and all that she did during her life. Feel free to respond above wherever you think a suggested change would not be helpful or if you need clarification or want to discuss further about anything. DanCherek (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DanCherek. I really appreciate the help you have offered to improve it. I enjoyed writing about these women who lost their nationality for Women in Green this month. Having been stuck in the legal history all year (and I'll probably still be working on it for most of next year), it makes it far more compelling to understand how it actually impacted real people. I think I've answered most everything, but not sure what to do about Pakaru/Pukaru. Maybe it doesn't exist anymore, or maybe it is just a tiny spot in the road, or maybe it is called something else now. I have no clue, but spent hours trying to figure it out and then just gave up. I am still hoping that her granddaughter gets me permission to use the photograph of Miriam and Peter, but don't know if that will come through. SusunW (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your commendable work on all of these women's nationality articles. Per responses above, I'm satisfied that the current article meets the GA criteria, so this is a pass. I hope the photograph thing works out and also look forward to reading more of your ongoing work! DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@SusunW: Do you know which section of Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society would be the best one to list Soljak? I checked "Political figures" but it seems like that is for living people. I am wondering whether the article should be instead listed in Wikipedia:Good articles/History but wanted to check with you. DanCherek (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

DanCherek Thank you so much for your help in improving the article. Truth is, I never know what category to nominate women in. None of them seem to fit activists and social reformers. Obviously their actions were political, but rarely as politicians, they wanted to change society, but don't seem to fit well in "Culture, sociology and psychology", and they often were involved in legal challenges, but weren't lawyers, etc. Usually I just pick something and figure someone will fix it. ;) History works fine for me. It was a pleasure working with you. SusunW (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Don't forget to list your review on the editathon page, DanCherek so that they have a good count of the participants who reviewed articles. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, thanks for the reminder!  Done and also added to Wikipedia:Good articles/History. DanCherek (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Miriam Soljak, after fighting to recover her New Zealand nationality for nearly three decades, was told that the government considered she had never lost it? Source: "1919… forced to register [as an alien](p. 612)", "continued her campaign… during the Second World War the indefatigable Soljak took a deputation to the Minister of Internal Affairs".[2], and "under the provision of the British Naturalization and Status of Aliens (in N.Z.) Amendment Act, 1946, which came into force on the 9th instant, you are regarded as being once more British and furthermore, you are deemed never to have lost your British nationality".(p. 43) the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • ALT1: ... that neither divorce nor the naturalisation of her husband restored Miriam Soljak′s nationality in New Zealand? Source: "Her own husband's naturalisation in 1928 had not changed her national status… even the divorce, which was finalised in October 1939, did not restore her nationality."[3]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Micah Joseph Lebensohn

Improved to Good Article status by SusunW (talk), Ipigott (talk), and GRuban (talk). Nominated by SusunW (talk) at 14:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC).

• Approve Main Hook The article was promoted to Good Article status on the 28th, so is new enough. Obviously, the article is long enough and reads neutrally, with in-line citations. The hooks are short enough, interesting, and are cited in-line. The QPQ is done and there is no image to review. I think the main hook is the most interesting one out of the two and I feel it flows better. Silverseren^C 05:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Promoting the main hook to Prep 6 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)