Talk:The Real Matilda
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | The Real Matilda has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 17, 2026. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=small}
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:The Real Matilda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 17:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I'll be happy to take this on for review, as part of my pledge for the review at Talk:Kim Chwajin/GA1, and as part of Women in Green's contribution to the February 2026 backlog drive. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Comments
- Not something that necessarily needs adding, if there's no sources commenting on it. But I found myself asking who/what the titular Matilda was referring to. Was "Matilda" an individual person or an archetype of some sort?
- Hm, good question - it's explained in full on p11 of the book itself here, but essentially it's a play on the title of the song Waltzing Matilda. I'm not sure I can fully explain the title's meaning without it turning into a long tangent, but I've added a mention of the fact that the title is taken from the song. MCE89 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Summary
"Australian women "come pretty close to top rating as the 'doormats of the Western world'""
As this use of "doormat" is quite colloquial, I'd suggest either linking to the wiktionary entry for doormat or rewriting this in wikivoice with more encyclopedic wording.- Cut the quote and summarised it in wikivoice
- Spotcheck: [1]:5 Verified.
"the ways in which women has been"
-> "the ways in which women have been"- Fixed
"The work has been described as"
By whom?- Specified
- Spotcheck: [2]:413 Verified.
- Might be worth linking to History of Australia (1788–1850) for "early colonial history".
- Done
- Link to male chauvinism and patriarchy.
"a individual's formative childhood experiences"
Should be "an individual's [...]"- Fixed
Background and publication history
- Link to Women's liberation movement in Australia
- Done
- Think these two paragraphs could be merged together into one, as they're both relatively short and not particularly divergent in theme.
- Done
- Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
Reception
- Spotcheck: [3]:171 Verified.
- Spotcheck: [2]:412 Verified.
- Spotcheck: [1]:5 I'm not sure the wording of "overly simplistic" is in line with the specifics of what Curthoys is saying here.
- Changed this to
for neglecting the diversity of male and female experiences
to better match the source's ...a single linear story, where differences among women, or among men, though noted, do not disturb the driving force of the binary men-versus-women argument
- Changed this to
"the individual and the societal level"
The individual and societal level of what?- Specified
"However, despite her criticisms"
"However," and "despite" are redundant to each other; use one or the other, but not both.- Done
- Link to Feminism in Australia for "Australian feminism".
- Done
Later reception
- Spotcheck: [1]:1 Had to check this one because "is frequently compared to" stuck out to me as an unsupported attribution. Sure enough, the cited source doesn't say these two books are "frequently compared", nor does it compare them; it just says the two books (among others), released in a short span of time, "inaugurated new research in the field" of Australian women's history. It aligns more with what is said in the rest of the paragraph than the sentence about McGrath comparing the two.
- Ah yep, agreed - I was writing this article at the same time as Damned Whores and God's Police and must have slipped into a bit of OR here. Removed that as I can't find a source that explicitly supports it.
- Spotcheck: [7] Seems the source actually goes a bit further, criticising Dixson for lengthy gripes about recent historiography; which would imply that, rather than not updating the book to current historiographical trends, she was actually resistant to those trends.
- Added the fact that McGrath criticised Dixson for these additions
Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
A couple cases of incorrect grammar and unclear prose.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- All seems to comply with the Manual of Style.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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 properly laid out and consistent.
- 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):
- The article is fully supported by inline citations.
- C. It contains no original research:
Seems like there's a couple places where it deviates slightly from the cited sources.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- No copyright violations or plagiarism noticed in spot checks. Nothing flagged by Earwig.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Everything I would expect to be addressed about the book has been
, although I was wondering throughout reading it if the title was a reference to something.
- Everything I would expect to be addressed about the book has been
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Completely focused on the subject without any major deviations.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Neutrally-worded and presented throughout, not taking a position on the book's thesis or contents one way or another.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No major changes since GA nomination; no reverts in article history.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- Book cover has valid non-free use rationale.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Only image included is one of the book cover.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This is a well-written and informative article, and it is certainly close to meeting all the GA criteria. I mostly have some minor comments about prose and verifiability (and a question about broadness) that need to be addressed before I can pass the review. Feel free to ping me once these comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions. Great work so far! --Grnrchst (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
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.