Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
One reference:
What might that be?
Two more:
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:
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)
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)
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)
Quote from the article:
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))
Another quote from the article as it was when the GA reassessor arrived at it:
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)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
One reference:
What might that be?
Two more:
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:
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)
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)
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)
Quote from the article:
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))
Another quote from the article as it was when the GA reassessor arrived at it:
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)