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

Nominator: Jolielover (talk · contribs) 16:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave this a wee read a couple months ago and found it fascinating how a character from an Ibsen play became so influential in Republican China. More than happy to take this on for review. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck: "Nora met her future husband [...]" Verified in Jakovljevic 2002, p. 438.
• Do we know anything about her biography before she met her husband?
  • Nope, other than the fact that her father was ill and dying (which is mentioned). I don't think that needs to be expanded on per MOS:FICTIONPLOT as it's already mentioned and is not very relevant.
• Spotcheck: "She later married him and had three children" Verified in Dukore 1990, p. 310.
• "Torvald became seriously ill, and doctors advise him to stay in a region with a warmer climate" There's an internal contradiction in the use of grammatical tenses here. He "became" (past tense) ill then doctors "advise him" (present tense). It seems like this sentence then marks a shift from the use of past tense in the previous sentences to the use of present tense in the subsequent ones. The grammatical tenses should be consistent throughout.
  • Done
• Spotcheck: "Nora saves the allowance [...]" It seems the cited source here is an excerpt from the play's script. Is there a secondary source that could be cited instead?
  • Per MOS:FICTIONPLOT this is fine
• I'm guessing Torvald has recovered by the time the play has started?
  • Yes; added.
• Spotcheck: "Torvald having several affectionate pet names for her" Verified in Jakovljevic 2002, p. 437.
• "a seemingly idyllic middle class life" Seemingly idyllic how?
  • I added a bit more on their financial status at this point; middle-class idyll is what the source says, and I personally don't think this needs to be expanded on.
    • The added context clarifies this nicely. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotcheck: "Nora's childhood friend [...]" Verified in Brinkmann 2009, but on page 4, not the given page numbers.
  • My source, on JSTOR, gives the page number as 12-13 (where this is being discussed) in the top left corner.
    • Ah, ok, now I get it. I was using the hdi version in the citation. It's a shame to remove an open access version, but it might be worth cutting it just to ensure you're linking to the correct pagination. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotcheck: "[...] replacing Krogstad with her." Verified in Pearce 1970, p. 336.
• "Later, Krogstad arrives at the house [...]" Again, this is on page 4, not the given page numbers. Also, this is quite closely paraphrased from the cited source. I'd advise rewriting this segment.
  • Re-written
• "Nora attempts to distract Torvald [...]" The structure of this sentence is a bit confusing without any punctuation.
  • Reworded
• "Nora realizes the realities of her marriage" Which are?
  • Clarified
• This is again cited to incorrect page numbers, this is also page 4.
• Is this picture of Johannesen her performing the tarantella? If so, it might be worth moving this down to the part where the tarantella is analysed.
  • I've moved it closer to that section.
• Public domain status of Joahannesen photo verified.
  • About the page numbers - as mentioned above, my copy of the source on JSTOR has the page numbers as what is in the article. Which one are you using? I think the page numbers currently in the article are reliable as the numbers are directly printed on the page (seen in JSTOR), maybe some discrepancies with your version? EG although it is page number 12 (as printed), the excerpt sees it as the second page, thus saying such (on top).
    • As above, the issue was me using the hdi version, which uses a different pagination. I'd recommend trimming that from the citation to be clearer about which version is being used. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the open-access version should stay; discrepancies in page numbers is a very minor thing, and I think the open access and verification of the information should take precedent.
        • Then it might at least be worth appending an invisible comment to the citation to clarify to anyone reading the code that the hdi has a different pagination. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done

• Spotcheck: "Ibsen's inspiration for the character [...]" Verified in Templeton 1989, p. 35.
• No need for the consecutive citation, as it's from the same page of the same source.
  • Changed
• Spotcheck: "On discovering the crime [...]" Verified in Jakovljevic 2002, p. 446.
• "Kieler was put in a lunatic asylum" I don't like the use of passive voice here; suggest rewriting in active voice.
  • Done
• "publicly state such" Maybe "publicly defend her" instead?
  • I think this might be taking a little too much liberty, personally. The source says that she asked Ibsen to publicly state she didn't commit forgery; "defend" her is a little too vague imo.
    • Fair enough! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A little more detail about Kieler would be nice. Did she have a reaction to Ibsen using her as a basis for the character?
  • Expanded
    • Nicely done. That quote from Ledger adds a lot. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nora Helmer received immense controversy" Suggest: "Nora Helmer was the subject of immense controversy"
  • Done
• It's a little jarring how we jump from the play's debut to its staging in Japan over 30 years later. Is there any more information about its early reception?
  • Expanded
• Link to individualism and female education.
  • Done
• "The Japanese professor Ukita Kazutami [de] gave a lecture" This is quite a long sentence, it could be broken up. Suggest changing "not within Japanese social norms, also arguing" to "not within Japanese social norms. He also argued".
  • Done
• "praised Nora's lack of agency and autonomy" Does this mean she praised the depiction of Nora's lack of agency and autonomy, or that she specifically liked that Nora did not have agency and autonomy?
  • Whoops, the former. Changed.
• Public domain status of Håkansson photo verified.
• "has been described" By whom?
  • Added
• Here you're citing Templeton's entire article. Is there a specific page range where she talks about "how some critics perceive Nora as inconsistent or unwomanly, while others view her as a symbol of women's emancipation"?
  • Done
• "Academic Arthur Ganz wrote of Nora, stating she was" Suggest: "Academic Arthur Ganz wrote that Nora was"
  • Done
• Spotcheck: "consumed by the desire for love" Verified in Bird 1980, p. 106.
• "The metaphor of the 'doll' in relation" Another rather long, meandering sentence that could be broken up a bit.
• What page range is being referenced from Khurram 2016?
  • I think I didn't add one since the entire excerpt is about the relation between the title and Nora; however, I've now added the pages in which this is explicitly discussed.
• "being referred to as" Suggest: "and was also referred to as"
  • Done
• ""ultimate rebel" from her will " From?
  • What do you mean? I personally think that the sentence makes sense.
    • The sentence more or less makes sense, but I'm questioning the connecting word "from". Think "due to" or "because of" might be clearer. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, got you. Changed.
• "from a "female woman" to a "male woman", feminine qualities to masculine ones" I'd say stick with either the former or the latter and trim the other. These are saying more or less the same thing, so there's no need to repeat it.
  • Done
• "amongst women" Meaning it has been interpreted amongst women, or that she sought liberation amongst women? Sentence structure makes this a bit unclear.
  • Clarified
• Spotcheck: "Michael Gelber proposed [...]" Verified in Gelber & Templeton 1989, pp. 360–361.
• Spotcheck: "Nora has drawn frequent comparasions [...]" Verified in Masters 2012 and Bird 1980, pp. 105–107.
• "frequent comparasions" This strikes me as an editorialisation, given we only cite two sources; is that enough to be "frequent"?
  • Removed "frequent"
• "display of beauty" What does this mean?
  • I've clarified this
• Spotcheck: "frenzied twitching" Verified in Lambert 1964, p. 593.
• "described the dance as "frenzied"" Given this is the second time this specific word is used, I think this could say "also described the dance as frenzied".
  • Done
• "was noted" by Mahaffey?
  • Yes, clarified

• Spotcheck: "translated during the May Fourth Movement" Verified in Schwarcz 1975, p. 3.
• "a refusal for "Confucian morality"" Should this be "a refusal of "Confucian morality"?
  • Changed
• ""go to the bad or return to her husband"" What does "the bad" mean?
  • Clarified
• "progressive intellectuals' response in opposition" suggest "progressive intellectuals' response" or "progressive intellectuals' opposition"
  • Done

• It would be interesting to have some prose discussing these portrayals (even just the most notable ones), to complement the list. Do any sources discuss the portrayals? Is this something that you could put together?
  • Done; I've added prose on the most notable portrayals.
    • Very nice. Think my only note on this would be the use of "revolutionary" in wikivoice, which falls under MOS:PEACOCK. Adding "considered", i.e. "Her performance was well-received and considered revolutionary", would clear up any potential neutrality problems. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done
• Assuming good faith on the bulk of the citations.

• "a fictional character of Henrik Ibsen's 1879 play A Doll's House." Might be better with "in" instead of "of", but it's not a big issue.
  • Changed
• Valid public domain rationale for Hennings photograph.

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:

   A few cases where the prose is either unclear or not concise enough. There's a couple grammatical issues as well.

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

   There's some weasel wording in there.

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:

   All references are well-presented.

   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):

   All sources are reliable and cited inline, although there's a couple incorrect or missing page numbers.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research as far as I could see.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Some close paraphrasing in the biography section, which should be rewritten. But no clear-cut cases of copyright violations or substantial plagiarism.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Some more detail about Kieler, early reception and prose about portrayals, if sources can back this up, would go a long way.

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

   Very focused on the topic, without any major deviations.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   One minor case of inappropriate passive voice.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No reverts, no major changes since 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 public domain rationales.

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

   Images are all relevant, showing either actresses playing the character or someone who notably discussed her.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I enjoyed giving this article a closer reading. It currently falls short of GA criteria in a few places, particularly on prose and possibly on broadness, but I think with a bit of work, it could pass. Feel free to ping me once you've responded to the comments and/or if you have any questions. Nice work on this, thanks for writing it! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: Thank you so much for your review, and taking the time out of your day to do so! I believe I've addressed everything; see my above comments for anything I may have changed/haven't. jolielover♥talk 08:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover: Thanks for seeing to all of this! I have made a couple more comments to address, and then I'll be happy to pass this. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: addressed all your comments! Hope it works :) jolielover♥talk 07:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not more than happy to pass this. Excellent work on this article! --Grnrchst (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]