Talk:Ilse Stephan

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.

---

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

Nominator: Maxwhollymoralground (talk · contribs) 00:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll be taking this on for review as part of Women in Green's May 2025 edit-a-thon and the GAN backlog drive. Apologies it took so long for a review to materialise. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• I found a couple other sources that mention Stephan which might be worth integrating if they contain more information:

Early life

• The whole date of birth should provided, rather than just the year.
• We spend a lot of time here going over Stephan's step-father's biography, to such an extent that it distracts from Stephan's own biography. Most of this information should be the basis for an article about Meyer himself and the information directly relevant to Stephan's biography should be greatly condensed. If this section were to focus on Stephan, it would only be one paragraph in length.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• The citation for Stephan's entry in the BzA website needs reformatting: it should credit the author (Peter Erler); and it duplicates the website url and the name of the institution (these could be merged).
• If she was born "Ilse Korth", when did she change her name to "Stephan"? Did she get married?

Career in East Germany

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
• As per above, is her step-father's rehabilitation directly relevant to her career in the SED?
• "Later," When?
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• Per MOS:PARA, single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided, as they break up the flow of the article. Short single-sentence paragraphs like this should be integrated into other paragraphs.
• "Stephan succeeded him" What did she succeed him as? What was the position?
• "X. Party Congress" It would be better for the reader to say "10th Party Congress". Also, this links to the 8th Party Congress; that should be fixed.
• Is "demotion" the right word when it's about an organisation? Think you could say it was "reorganised into a working group" or something.

Downfall and death

• Use Chernenko's full name, not just his surname.
• This first sentence is a bit of a run-on sentence and rather confusing as a result. It should be broken up so the reader can best understand it.
• What are we quoting "between the fronts" from, and is it necessary to quote it when we could just say "[she] was caught in the increasing tensions [...]"?
• Again, these short paragraphs break up the flow of the article. They should be merged together.
• "saying she would tell the Soviets if things went on as they were" She would tell the Soviets... what exactly?
• "as interpreter/translator sector" Should be "as its interpreter/translator sector".
• Did the Soviets have anything to say about her treatment? Was she ever rehabilitated?
• What was the location of her death? It's not included in the infobox.

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:

   There's a couple cases where the prose is unclear, or where the grammar and sentence structure could be tightened up.

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

   There are some single-sentence and other very short paragraphs that need integrating into other.

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:

   Formatting of the citations need to be checked that they contain all the necessary information.

   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 the information in the article is cited to at least one reliable source.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research as far as I could find.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issues with copyright violations or plagiarism, even in translation.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Appears to cover everything about her that exists in the cited sources, although another check for further information could be useful for fleshing out the article a bit more.

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

   It loses focus in the earlier part and spends far more time focusing on her step-father than it does on her. This could be fixed by splitting this text out into an article about Meyer.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   It's neutral throughout.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No major changes to the article since it was nominated. No reversions either.

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:

   No images in use.

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

   No images in use. Are there no photographs of Stephan that we could use for this article?

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article could do with a bit more work to tighten up its prose, and especially to trim away the information that isn't directly relevant to Stephan's biography. Feel free to ping me when you feel you have addressed everything and I'll be happy to give it another look over. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I addressed most of the points you raised. I condensed the paragraphs, re-wrote the first downfall sentence and included the first additionally source you mentioned, the second one seems to refer to a different Ilse Stephan, as she is mentioned as a concentration camp inmate there. Unfortunately, I can't address a few points because of a lack of information on Stephan. Neither the BzA source nor Uschner give her exact death place (almost certainly East Berlin, but we don't know for sure) and the BzA source (I included the authors, but they don't give Peter Erler as an author, where did you find him?) only says "geb. Korth" (lit. "née Korth), so she likely married, but we don't know for sure. As for Stephan's step-father, I shortend his section a bit, maybe the "waning days" sentence could also be removed/shortend, but I think it is important to Stephan's biography. Meyer's execution does make her a Great Purge victim and the events that led there are important to her socialization. In addition, in Communist parties, family heritage is very important and Meyer's rehabilitation is most likely directly related to her promotion to the CC apparatus. In Uschner's book, he gives an example of another KPD functionary daughter, Gisela Glende, whose family heritage also contributed her to become a SED functionary. Indeed, both Uschner's one-and-a-half pages about Stephan and Stephan's BzA page heavily reference Meyer. As for the working group sentence, I felt it was important to make the distinction as the organisation she now headed was still called "General Department Working Group" despite being a Working Group, whose heads, as mentioned in the article, have a lower rank. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwhollymoralground: Regarding Peter Erler, at the bottom of the BzA article it lists it as being written by "PeE". When you click through to its author list, PeE is listed as Peter Erler. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

As for the details about Meyer, I agree that it's important context for her biography, my issue was more with the amount of detail about it. As of the current version, there are seven sentences about Meyer; I think this could be shortened to two or three so we keep the focus on Stephan. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps "downgraded" (rather than "demoted") might be appropriate for the working group? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I actually found another source for her time in emigration. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The rewrites you've done are looking good! A couple notes on the changes (per this diff):

• "Politemigranten" could do with a translation or explanation. I can guess that it means "political emigrant" or something similar, but readers unfamiliar with German could do with the clarification.
• Per MOS:SURNAME, we should be referring to Stephan by her prior surnames in the earlier periods of her life. So in the period before she took the name "Ilse Stephan", we should be referring to her as "Korth"/"Ilse Korth".

--Grnrchst (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwhollymoralground: Ok this is all looking really good. I think the only remaining note I have is about the focus on Meyer. There is a sentence about his release from a concentration camp, followed by a sentence about him being a victim of the Great Purge, followed by a sentence about him being sentenced and shot. I think these three sentences could be trimmed down into one sentence. This would maintain the important context, while also not detracting the focus away from Stephan. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that should be it. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwhollymoralground: Excellent work. I'm more than happy to pass this review now. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2025 (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.