Jamie Kalven is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 16, 2024. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 4, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Chicago journalist
Jamie Kalven (pictured) has amassed a database of nearly 250,000 allegations against police officers? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 15:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Edge3 ( talk). Self-nominated at 01:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jamie Kalven; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Saw this on DYK, seems like a very interesting person. Happy to review!
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) (
not me) (
also not me) (
still no) 12:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Prose is clear and free of typos. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Complies with MoS standards- no fiction or words to watch are present, lead is well-written. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Citations are placed under a proper "References" section | |
2b. 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 citations are to news sites or official documents (like court cases)- all reliable. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I did some random checks on some possibly contentious statements, all came up clear. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows a relatively high score for some- the highest score is to a source licensed under CC, and the citation states that some material is taken from the site, so that's all good. The other high score is for the Chicago magazine source, but most of the highlights are for long names or otherwise simple statements like "A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America". No copyvios/plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Addresses his personal life and the major events in his career- all good. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays focused throughout. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article stays neutral throughout, particularly in discussions of the various court cases. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are properly CC/PD tagged. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and properly captioned. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
@ MyCatIsAChonk Thank you for your review! I wanted to make sure I addressed the rest of your comments, even though you just passed it for GA status. I was delayed in posting this message because I had taken a quick nap. :-)
The "Invisible Institute" was a fictitious name for the blog's publisher.– "fictitious publisher" means that the Invisible Institute didn't actually exist as a formal entity. Recall that The View from the Ground was a webzine put together by the Kalven, Evans, and Eads as a grassroots project based in Stateway Gardens. There was no need for a formal organization at the time, so they listed Invisible Institute as a "publisher" more as a joke.
Everytime "FOIA" is stated as a subject or object, it must be preceded with "the". When the FOIA itself is not the object/subject (like in "FOIA requests") "the" is not needed– I disagree with this. I'm somewhat of a FOIA enthusiast myself, and colloquially, "FOIA" in Illinois is referred to in conversation and in writing without the article. See Illinois Freedom of Information Act (which I wrote) and the sources I cited for that article.
Edge3 ( talk) 22:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Just leaving a note here in case people have questions. During the FAC nomination, Kalven's birth year was estimated at 1948, but there was some uncertainty around this estimate. See version at February 23, 2024, footnote 1. After this article was scheduled for TFA, a question was raised at TFA talk to see whether the specific birth year could be determined. Thanks to some additional research, the exact date of birth was found in Kalven's marriage certificate on Ancestry.com, and the year of birth (1948) is now cited accordingly in the article.
As I stated at TFA talk, I am not inclined to include the full date of birth. Under our policy WP:DOB, we provide "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." In this case, Kalven's date of birth is published in only one primary source (the marriage certificate), and is not mentioned in any secondary source that I'm aware of. Edge3 ( talk) 04:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
In the "Works" section, this notation is used: "Kalven, Harry (1989). —— (ed.). " My vision isn't great, and I struggle to read it. Is it two em-dashes together? What does it mean? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 16:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
Cite book}} may be used to format bibliography entries; for single-author lists, use |author-mask=
to avoid repeating the author's name.
I do wonder if we should mention Kalven by name in the second item in "Works", since the first item was authored by his father.
Edge3 (
talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The article repeatedly states that Laquan McDonald was shot "execution style", but does not explain (single bullet to the back or side of the head? firing squad in front?). Indeed, the autopsy diagram suggests he died in a hail of bullets from all over--far from a tidy execution. And one person shot him 16 times? This is a glaring discordance. Minturn ( talk) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Jamie Kalven is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 16, 2024. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 4, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Chicago journalist
Jamie Kalven (pictured) has amassed a database of nearly 250,000 allegations against police officers? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 15:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Edge3 ( talk). Self-nominated at 01:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jamie Kalven; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Saw this on DYK, seems like a very interesting person. Happy to review!
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) (
not me) (
also not me) (
still no) 12:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Prose is clear and free of typos. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Complies with MoS standards- no fiction or words to watch are present, lead is well-written. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Citations are placed under a proper "References" section | |
2b. 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 citations are to news sites or official documents (like court cases)- all reliable. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I did some random checks on some possibly contentious statements, all came up clear. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows a relatively high score for some- the highest score is to a source licensed under CC, and the citation states that some material is taken from the site, so that's all good. The other high score is for the Chicago magazine source, but most of the highlights are for long names or otherwise simple statements like "A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America". No copyvios/plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Addresses his personal life and the major events in his career- all good. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays focused throughout. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article stays neutral throughout, particularly in discussions of the various court cases. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are properly CC/PD tagged. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and properly captioned. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
@ MyCatIsAChonk Thank you for your review! I wanted to make sure I addressed the rest of your comments, even though you just passed it for GA status. I was delayed in posting this message because I had taken a quick nap. :-)
The "Invisible Institute" was a fictitious name for the blog's publisher.– "fictitious publisher" means that the Invisible Institute didn't actually exist as a formal entity. Recall that The View from the Ground was a webzine put together by the Kalven, Evans, and Eads as a grassroots project based in Stateway Gardens. There was no need for a formal organization at the time, so they listed Invisible Institute as a "publisher" more as a joke.
Everytime "FOIA" is stated as a subject or object, it must be preceded with "the". When the FOIA itself is not the object/subject (like in "FOIA requests") "the" is not needed– I disagree with this. I'm somewhat of a FOIA enthusiast myself, and colloquially, "FOIA" in Illinois is referred to in conversation and in writing without the article. See Illinois Freedom of Information Act (which I wrote) and the sources I cited for that article.
Edge3 ( talk) 22:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Just leaving a note here in case people have questions. During the FAC nomination, Kalven's birth year was estimated at 1948, but there was some uncertainty around this estimate. See version at February 23, 2024, footnote 1. After this article was scheduled for TFA, a question was raised at TFA talk to see whether the specific birth year could be determined. Thanks to some additional research, the exact date of birth was found in Kalven's marriage certificate on Ancestry.com, and the year of birth (1948) is now cited accordingly in the article.
As I stated at TFA talk, I am not inclined to include the full date of birth. Under our policy WP:DOB, we provide "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." In this case, Kalven's date of birth is published in only one primary source (the marriage certificate), and is not mentioned in any secondary source that I'm aware of. Edge3 ( talk) 04:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
In the "Works" section, this notation is used: "Kalven, Harry (1989). —— (ed.). " My vision isn't great, and I struggle to read it. Is it two em-dashes together? What does it mean? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 16:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
Cite book}} may be used to format bibliography entries; for single-author lists, use |author-mask=
to avoid repeating the author's name.
I do wonder if we should mention Kalven by name in the second item in "Works", since the first item was authored by his father.
Edge3 (
talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The article repeatedly states that Laquan McDonald was shot "execution style", but does not explain (single bullet to the back or side of the head? firing squad in front?). Indeed, the autopsy diagram suggests he died in a hail of bullets from all over--far from a tidy execution. And one person shot him 16 times? This is a glaring discordance. Minturn ( talk) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)