Talk:Edith Rosenwald Stern/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lajmmoore (talk · contribs) 20:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just picking up this article to review. It will be my first GA review, so would be very pleased if a more experienced editor could review my suggestions, once they are complete. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review table

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Review

1a + 1b: Prose & MoS

Lead: There shouldn't be citations in the lead paragraph, which summarises the article.

According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, citations in the lead paragraph is optional. My personal opinion is that it is better to include citations in the lead section since the lead section is important to establishing notability. Nolabob (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long Vue House and Gardens: Should the Wiki Commons box here, move to an external links section?

I have moved this to external links section per reviewer's suggestion. Nolabob (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political involvements and civil rights: "By 1945, Stern became involved with other women in New Orleans organized to break established political machines in the city." - I think this sentence needs changing as I am not sure what sense is meant.

I have improved the wording of this sentence per the reviewer's suggestion. I hope this paragraph is now sufficiently clear. Nolabob (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2a + 2b: Referencing and citation

Early life and education: There is a reference missing for the first sentence for her DOB, etc. Now marked ^{[citation needed]}

I have added a suitable reference and removed the citation needed tag, per reviewer's comment. Nolabob (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education: Reference 3 - I do not have access to this source, so am unable to verify the substantial amount of content it is used to support.

See my comment in section 3 below. Nolabob (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life in New Orleans: The date for their ownership of White Pines need verification. This is what the text currently reads: "The Sterns and Levys often used the compound for entertaining friends and relatives, and they owned the home until 1946 (need to verify date)." Text needs changing and verification needs adding.

Altered the text and verified the dates through reference 3. Nolabob (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life in New Orleans: Reference needed for Tanglewood Music? [or is it in reference 3 that I can't access?]

Reference added for this passage. However, it is still reference 3. Nolabob (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long Vue House and Gardens: in this paragraph - "In 1977, Stern bequeathed Longue Vue House and Gardens ..." the weblink I can access has limited infomation on the museum - is the rest in Source 3? The website for the house doesn't seem to reflect the statement that its a museum today?

I have added a reference clearly showing that Longue Vue is today a museum, per reviewer request. Also, the part about bequeathing in 1977 is substantiated by reference 15 which was already in the article. Nolabob (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy: Source 17 is a broken link

I'm not sure I understand this comment. The link works for me. Is there another one that is broken? Nolabob (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political involvements and civil rights: Source 10 doesn't cover all the points in the paragraph - I've added ^{[citation needed]} where further referencing is required

I have added additional citations and removed the cn tags from this paragraph. Nolabob (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political involvements and civil rights: "...a project that the Sterns ultimately backed." - source 10 doesn't refer precisely to the initiatives that the article claims.

I have added a suitable citation. Nolabob (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and recognition: Source 23 for the Solomon Award is a broken link

I replaced the broken link. Nolabob (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and recognition: Source 25 is a dead link - you could also add the year this was reported on too!

I'm not sure what the problem was with that link. It works for me. Since it is to a newspaper article, it's probably a permanent link. However, I added the year per suggestion. So I removed the two tags from this passage. Nolabob (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2c + 2d: Original research and copyright

Early ..."life and education: With reference to Citation 4 - this seems to veer into OR, as the article referenced only states that Julius owned a house there. It does not discuss where the children were brought up.

Added supporting citation. Nolabob (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy: I don't see where the source (16) supports this sentence: "As part of her activist philanthropic tenets, Stern required that financial recipients have a personal vested interest in their philanthropic cause." without there being a bit of a leap of faith in interpretation.

Supporting citation now added. Nolabob (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and recognition: I think this statement "In 1984, Gerda Weissmann Klein published a biography of Edith Stern." would be better supported with reviews of the book, rather than the book itself (which is a primary rather than a secondary source)

I have added a citation to a book review and removed the citation to the book itself, per reviewer's comment. Nolabob (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3: Broadness and focus

Overall it seems that the article considers a wide spectrum of the subject's life, however without access the biography, which the article relies on heavily, it is difficult to assess what else might be missing.

This is a difficult comment for me to address. The Klein biography book about Stern is available through libraries, even though it is not available on-line (that I know of). So, I appreciate that it would be difficult for the reviewer to gain access to the biography without efforts above and beyond the responsibilities of a reviewer. Also, in the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles essay, it states "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained." Perhaps the reviewer has thoughts on how to deal with this issue. Nolabob (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I would recommend is an additional section on legacy - this could include the sentence on the racist mail, the Smithsonian portrait - I think the article would really benefit from more detailed assessment of the impact of her life.

I have added a section on legacy. I have done this in a way that emphasizes Stern's enduring legacy, so that it is not simply redundant with the section on Awards and recognition. Nolabob (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I wonder if there was more opposition to her work than the article suggests? if so, that would be useful to include

I've not found a lot on this. However, I've added a subsection on "Opposition" in which her role in the mayor's election is mentioned. I also moved the passage about hate mail to this section. Also, in the part on Longue Vue, there is mention of the zoning dispute. Otherwise, I'm not aware of anything else to add. Nolabob (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4: Neutrality

Lead: In the lead, it states: "Examples of her controversial philanthropy included supporting voter registration of African-Americans in the American South, the anti-nuclear movement, public-interest law firms, organizing union and tenant groups, and initiation of challenges by shareholders who wanted corporations to become more socially responsible." I would suggest that the word "controversial" needs some moderation, since supporting these issues was untypical then rather than today.

Added suitable qualifiers. Nolabob (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education: Here it states: "Starting in early childhood, Stern's parents instilled in her a strong sense of charity, commitment to the social and economic well-being of society, and noblesse oblige." However the source (5) only refers to her father as influential on this matter. I would either alter the text to reflect what it says, or add an additional supporting source to demonstrate the involvement of both parents.

I have added an additional citation to substantiate this point. Nolabob (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life in New Orleans: in the section is says "The couple had three children, and they were notable in their own right, ..." - I would suggest the word notable could be altered - I've been picked up for using it under the WP:Puffery policy previously.

I have adjusted the wording accordingly. Nolabob (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life in New Orleans: I think these sentences - "An extended visit to Europe and the Holy Lands of Palestine with her husband Edgar, which lasted from 1936 to 1937 was particularly noteworthy, especially in view of the tense political climate in Europe in the 1930s. The Sterns witnessed first-hand the rising antisemitism of the time, especially during their visits to Germany. They observed the heavy hand of Stalin during their time in Russia, and they saw the plight of Polish Jews." - could be revisited and perhaps simplified, as well altering the language "heavy hand" and "plight".

I have simplified this paragraph and replaced the words "heavy hand" and "plight", per reviewer suggestion. Nolabob (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5: Stability

Article appears stable, no ongoing edit conflicts, etc.

6: Images

Article would benefit from the inclusion of a Fair Use image of Stern.

Unfortunately, I've not been able to find an image of Stern that is free of copyright restrictions. I've looked from time to time ever since I first originated this article several years ago. Nolabob (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Many thanks @Nolabob: for writing and promoting a really interesting article. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. By coincidence, I am traveling at the moment and will not be able to work on the upgrades you suggest until after my return on November 17 (other than a few preliminaries). Nolabob (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajmmoore:, I realized today that my copy of the Klein book (reference 3 in the Stern article) was lost in a recent move. I am obtaining a new copy of the book. However, this means that I will not be able to properly respond to your reviewer's comments until I receive the new copy. This could take a few weeks (I hope not that long). But it may be best to change the status of the review from "onreview" to "onhold". My apologies for this. Nolabob (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for letting me know @Nolabob, there's no rush from my pov. In terms of access to the Klein book, I'm going to see if my university can get in on inter-library loan. If not, I think (& this is based on a suggestion on the GA talk page) that you just email me a few phone snaps of pertinent pages, so I can just double check some of them? I'll let you know if I can get hold of the book though. Many thanks, I've put the review on hold for now. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajmmoore:, I received my new copy of the Klein book late yesterday. However, I'm about to go on extended international travel, and so it is unlikely that I will be able to do further work on the GA review comments until after my return on December 20. Thank you for your patience on this. Nolabob (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - thanks for letting me know! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajmmoore:, I believe I have now addressed all of the points in the GA review. Please have a look and let me know how you would like to proceed. Thank you for your review and suggested improvements to the article. Nolabob (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nolabob thank you so much for all your hard work on this article. I made a couple of final tweaks, and added some exisiting references to support the Legacy section. I'm very happy to promote it to GA. Well done! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I much appreciate your diligent review. It resulted in a better article. Nolabob (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]