Talk:Jacob Riis/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 15, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
One query - Marriages and early life: At age 25, Riis wrote to Elisabeth Gortz to propose a second time. When was the first time? I can find no mention of it. WP:MOS The lead does not summarize all sections of the article, particulary the later life and criticism sections.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All references check out. Citations could be more consistent but it is not required for GA
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I would like the lead to be expanded slightly to accurately summarize the entire article. On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first marriage proposal to Elisabeth/Elizabeth is now explained. There's more to be done, however. -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently, I've had the book Rediscovering Jacob Riis checked out from my library for the last few weeks. Can probably help out a bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will source/rewrite what I can in the next few days. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think Hoary has pointed out a lot of problems (below) which I missed so, i will de-list it and when editors can agree on what should be in the article it can be brought back to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddities[edit]

One reference:

Eli Siegel, "Art as Ethics," The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, no. 738 (May 1987).

What might that be?

Two more:

New York Times June 2, 1900

New York Times September 21, 1918.

I cannot believe that any WP editor would look through NYT microform and find these sources but yet not be bothered to specify the precise article titles, etc. Surely these come via some second hand source. What would that be?

We read:

His son, Edward V. Riis, represented American media in Denmark after World War I.

First, I don't know what "media" might mean in that historical context other than the press. But whatever "media" means, what does this assertion mean? If the source says he was a foreign correspondent, let's say so; if it says something else, let's say that. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the first as a fringe source. (See its website.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT sourcing is now sorted out. (The articles are on the web.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This article is largely sourced to a single article by somebody (Bernstein) who is very keen to bring into his discussion one Eli Siegel and his mystical-sounding beliefs, and who repeatedly cites material published in Siegel's newsletter (which libraries ignore in droves, if we can believe WorldCat). This all looks dodgy to me, and quite unnecessary given the large number of books on Riis from respected publishers. This Wikipedia article looks to me a well-intentioned article but hardly a good one. -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) [slightly rephrased Hoary (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)][reply]

The longer I look at that article, larded as it is with blather about Siegel and its own author, the less impressed I am by it as a source for an encyclopedia article. For this article to be "Good", it shouldn't rely at all on Mr Bernstein, however well-intentioned and scrupulous he might be. I've already substituted a better source for one factoid attributed to Bernstein; let's do more of this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article also three times references "Teaching History Online: 'Jacob Riis'". This is a short, unsigned piece; it's not clear how it's authoritative. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional sourcery[edit]

Quote from the article:

In 1906 Roosevelt himself coined the term "[[Muckraker|muckraking journalism]]", of which Riis was a recognized exponent.<ref name="bernstein"/>

But whatever else one might say about Bernstein's diffuse article, it doesn't once use the string "muck".

So this example of "sourcing" is fictitious. I wonder how much else here is fictitious too. I suggest that every "source" in this article is checked, dreary though the process will be. -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (augmented Hoary (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Another quote from the article as it was when the GA reassessor arrived at it:

From 1915 until 2002, Jacob Riis Public School on South Throop Street in Chicago was a high school operated by the Chicago School Board. It was razed in 2004-05.<ref>[http://www.preservationchicago.org/chicago7/2005/jacobriis.html Preservation Chicago]</ref>

As that page is linked from a list of seven Chicago buildings threatened with demolition in 2005, it's hardly surprising that the page says nothing about its having been razed from 2004. (The building also doesn't appear in that site's page about lost Chicago buildings.) It may indeed have been razed in 2005 (or conceivably even 2004) but the "source" doesn't back this up.

Fact, factoid, and fictional sourcing were all introduced in this one edit. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]