Talk:George Meany/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: CorporateM (talk · contribs) 06:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I am way passed due to make some contributions to GA reviews, given how many noms I do. I did a GA review a while back on something related to this and it's the oldest one in the GA review queue for business topics, so it's sensible for me to take it on. I'll be providing some first-look notes in waves below CorporateM (Talk) 06:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
First lookover
[edit]completed
|
---|
Lead[edit]
Done
Done Early life[edit]
Done
Done Union[edit]
Merger[edit]
Campaign against corruption[edit]
Democratic economic planning[edit]
Legislative agenda[edit]
Structure[edit]I would still encourage more consolidation. The bottom half of the article is mostly made up of one paragraph sections and many of them are on similar subjects. It's not prescriptive, but here's an example of how I would probably structure it: Early life
Legacy CorporateM (Talk) 23:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
A few more notes[edit]Lead Done Early life
Union Leadership
Done Remaining
Merger[edit]
Done Nothing else for this section besides these two CorporateM (Talk) 16:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Sources[edit]
Done The other sources all look good at-a-glance. CorporateM (Talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC) A few more unsourced statements from other areas of the article:
Against corruption section[edit]
|
Legislative agenda
[edit]- I would suggest "political views" as being more NPOV
- I changed it to "political goals". He was not a pundit, idly expressing opinions for pay or attention. He was establishing a political agenda for a very powerful organization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- It would be a substantial improvement if all of the quotes, or at least most of them, were taken out, re-written, etc.
- This section appears to be out-of-sync in the article's chronology. It could go near the bottom where Views sections often go, but if not, it looks like it at least goes someplace after the Vietnam war
- I moved the section later in the article, as you requested. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Vietnam war
[edit]done
|
---|
|
Civil Rights
[edit]Done
|
---|
|
Later years
[edit]done
|
---|
|
Honors and cultural impact
[edit]- I think the original "legacy" title was more NPOV and a pretty standard section on deceased BLPs. "Honors" wreaks of an "Awards" section which are almost always promotional
- I changed it back. I have few worries about promoting a guy who died 35 years ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The existence of commercial benefit is not required for an article to have a promotional tone CorporateM (Talk) 07:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- How is it possible for a biography of a person who died 35 years ago to be "promotional"? Improving an encyclopedia article about an indisputably notable historical figure is not promotional. I have bent over backwards to take your concerns into consideration. He has no fan club these days. That is a bizarre observation, unless people are proposing to build a George Meany theme park. Which they are not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've seen this argument alot on open-source projects that have no commercial element that are often written as a blatant advert. The content is still inappropriate for an encyclopedia, even if nobody benefits from it. Regarding "Bending over backwards", I am bending over backwards for YOU, because this article qualified for a quickfail given that so much of the page was completely unsourced. I have invested a substantial amount of time on it because you seemed to have the initiative to continue improving it and it was close enough. It wasn't really GAN-ready. CorporateM (Talk) 16:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is an interesting observation, CorporateM. Back in 2013, on the talk page of the article, an editor called Khazar2 expressed another opinion. That editor has completed over 350 GA reviews. Here is what he said: "This article appears to me very close to ready for GA--close enough that you could go ahead and nominate it right now. The sourcing and writing both look good and this seems likely to cover the 'main aspects'." Different reviewers have radically different interpretations, it seems. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've seen this argument alot on open-source projects that have no commercial element that are often written as a blatant advert. The content is still inappropriate for an encyclopedia, even if nobody benefits from it. Regarding "Bending over backwards", I am bending over backwards for YOU, because this article qualified for a quickfail given that so much of the page was completely unsourced. I have invested a substantial amount of time on it because you seemed to have the initiative to continue improving it and it was close enough. It wasn't really GAN-ready. CorporateM (Talk) 16:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- How is it possible for a biography of a person who died 35 years ago to be "promotional"? Improving an encyclopedia article about an indisputably notable historical figure is not promotional. I have bent over backwards to take your concerns into consideration. He has no fan club these days. That is a bizarre observation, unless people are proposing to build a George Meany theme park. Which they are not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- The existence of commercial benefit is not required for an article to have a promotional tone CorporateM (Talk) 07:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I changed it back. I have few worries about promoting a guy who died 35 years ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- "In granting the award, Johnson said of Meany, "Citizen and national leader, in serving the cause of labor, he has greatly served the cause of his Nation and of freedom throughout the world."[38] This is most likely a scripted statement. I would prefer if we just said something like "for his contributions to the labor movement" (much more neutral)
- Of course, it is a scripted statement. So was the Gettysburg Address, as we have Lincoln's handwritten notes as evidence. "Scripted" does not mean "exclude from the encyclopedia", since we include many quotes from Shakespeare. And many other scripted quotes. But in response to your concerns, I have paraphrased the statement. I am 99% sure that Kennedy selected Meany for the award, not Johnson. Lacking confirmation in a reliable source, I will not even hint at that in the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The quickfail criteria is here if you're interested and one of the criteria is any Citation Needed tags that are still relevant. CorporateM (Talk) 07:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- The article had no Citation Needed tags when I nominated it and none that I know of for several years previously. I responded promptly to every one of your concerns so I have no idea why you are discussing quickfail in this context. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- "and appeared twice on the cover of Time magazine, with a cigar in his mouth both times." This is OR
- I added another source to the two already in the article discussing Meany's cigar smoking, and the role that played in his public persona. I copy edited the statement which I hope will reduce your concerns. As for original research, that does not include simple counting, in this case of something self-evident in an image, especially counting to the number "two". Two Time magazine covers, an important symbol in popular culture in those days. Look at the images, how many show him smoking a cigar? "One, two". That is not original research, that is a referenced observation of an important aspect of his public persona. I could add many more sources on his cigar smoking, but then you would correctly say that I was over-citing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's original research because a reliable source didn't say "He was on the cover of TIME smoking a cigar". You found the issues yourself and decided personally that it was significant and that the most relevant point was that he was smoking a cigar. It's a reasonable observation in this context, but however reasonable, it's still OR. CorporateM (Talk) 06:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Although I disagree completely with your opinion that counting two major graphic elements on two magazine covers is "original research", especially when backed by another source which mentions how common the cigar imagery was on the covers of publications, I have changed the wording in response to your concerns. I have no further interest in arguing the point, especially since I hate all forms of tobacco smoking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's original research because a reliable source didn't say "He was on the cover of TIME smoking a cigar". You found the issues yourself and decided personally that it was significant and that the most relevant point was that he was smoking a cigar. It's a reasonable observation in this context, but however reasonable, it's still OR. CorporateM (Talk) 06:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I added another source to the two already in the article discussing Meany's cigar smoking, and the role that played in his public persona. I copy edited the statement which I hope will reduce your concerns. As for original research, that does not include simple counting, in this case of something self-evident in an image, especially counting to the number "two". Two Time magazine covers, an important symbol in popular culture in those days. Look at the images, how many show him smoking a cigar? "One, two". That is not original research, that is a referenced observation of an important aspect of his public persona. I could add many more sources on his cigar smoking, but then you would correctly say that I was over-citing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Meany stated that he had never walked a picket line,[6][8] explaining that his original plumber's union never needed to form a picket line, because the employers made no attempt to replace the workers.[42]" This seems a little out of place. Is there a better section to put it under?
- This is another aspect of Meany's public persona that I think is worthy of inclusion in a biographical article about him. It is in contrast to many other major American union leaders, most of whom "earned their spurs" in militant strike actions. Walter Reuther, for example, was hospitalized after a beating by Ford goons at the Battle of the Overpass. For those interested in U.S. labor history, the fact that Meany admitted that he had never picketed or led a militant strike action is a very important aspect of his life story. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yah, I'm just confused about it being in the Legacy section. It makes a reference to the plumber's union, and his work there is covered near the beginning of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 07:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I take your point. I moved it earlier in the chronology, to the point when he left the plumber's union, and became professionally involved with the broader union movement. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yah, I'm just confused about it being in the Legacy section. It makes a reference to the plumber's union, and his work there is covered near the beginning of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 07:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is another aspect of Meany's public persona that I think is worthy of inclusion in a biographical article about him. It is in contrast to many other major American union leaders, most of whom "earned their spurs" in militant strike actions. Walter Reuther, for example, was hospitalized after a beating by Ford goons at the Battle of the Overpass. For those interested in U.S. labor history, the fact that Meany admitted that he had never picketed or led a militant strike action is a very important aspect of his life story. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Among those attending the ceremony..." Probably isn't necessary for us to know who attended. Generally speaking the mere attendance of a person at an event is usually something that is best trimmed.
- Since you think that it is inappropriate to mention the participation in this event by Meany's successor, the head of the Israeli Labor Party, and the mayor of Jerusalem, I have reluctantly removed mention of this square in Jerusalem. I would not want readers to assume that it was a trivial honor organized by non-entities. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would probably lean towards mentioning the significant politicians, but maybe not the others. Up to you. CorporateM (Talk) 07:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Given your expressed concerns, I think that is best to keep mention of the Jerusalem square out of the article at this time, at least until we have stronger sourcing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would probably lean towards mentioning the significant politicians, but maybe not the others. Up to you. CorporateM (Talk) 07:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Since you think that it is inappropriate to mention the participation in this event by Meany's successor, the head of the Israeli Labor Party, and the mayor of Jerusalem, I have reluctantly removed mention of this square in Jerusalem. I would not want readers to assume that it was a trivial honor organized by non-entities. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Wrapping it up
[edit]I am just about prepared to pass this article as meeting the "Good Article" standard. The main problems of the article (unsourced content and excessive, editorialized quotes) appear to have been resolved and the remaining quotes are reasonable for the purposes you have described. Any remaining comments are just areas where different editors would probably do the same thing slightly differently and do not pertain to the GA standard.
The only remaining item I think is that I cannot pass it as GA if it has any original research at all. The statement "pictures of him often appeared in newspapers and magazines smoking a cigar"; unless one of the sources say this directly, is also original research. If you can take that out, or show that one of the sources directly say this, I can pass it.
If you disagree, I encourage you to seek a second opinion. CorporateM (Talk) 16:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Source #40, describing the relative strength of the labor movement in the 1960s says, "George Meany's cigar smoking visage and gruff pronouncements regularly adorned newspaper front pages." Plus, we have the links to the Time magazine covers, showing him smoking cigars. In one case, source #43, the cigar penetrates the border of the picture. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here is a quote from the New York Times Magazine in 1985: ""In the public mind, the image of big labor today is still stereotyped in the cartoonists' version of longtime A.F.L.-C.I.O. leader George Meany: a baleful- looking figure with a bulging belly and a clenched cigar, hurling monkey wrenches at the White House and the Capitol". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- What you quoted from source 40 should suffice! CorporateM (Talk) 06:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here is a quote from the New York Times Magazine in 1985: ""In the public mind, the image of big labor today is still stereotyped in the cartoonists' version of longtime A.F.L.-C.I.O. leader George Meany: a baleful- looking figure with a bulging belly and a clenched cigar, hurling monkey wrenches at the White House and the Capitol". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Source #40, describing the relative strength of the labor movement in the 1960s says, "George Meany's cigar smoking visage and gruff pronouncements regularly adorned newspaper front pages." Plus, we have the links to the Time magazine covers, showing him smoking cigars. In one case, source #43, the cigar penetrates the border of the picture. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)