Talk:John Adam Rittinger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 15:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this one and hopefully learn something about German-Canadians. Expect comments in the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall a very nice article about an interesting life in the context of immigration and identity. I have some minor comments to make and will update the progress table below as I go through and am satisfied with things.

Lead: there's a bit much detail of the ownerships of various journals, compared with how little detail there is about the rest of his life. "Sole-owner" with hyphen looks odd to me, but I'm not a native speaker and can be persuaded that this is fine. "Glockemann" as "bell ringer" is what your sources give as an option, but it looks more like "the Glocke man" to me. (But it's WP:OR, so better to ignore that).
Agreed, the lead left out important details, so I've expanded it. I agree that "sole owner" without the hyphen is better, and that is how Kalbfleisch writes it as well. Each source that mentions the nickname spells it "Glockemann", so I'll keep it that way.
Early years: Section is not just about early years, maybe "Early years and family"?
Yes, that's better. Changed to that.
"First generation" is a bit ambiguous, others would call him a "second generation" Canadian, but that's explained at the linked article so is probably fine.
Yes, I think you're right, it doesn't add anything besides confusion, so I've removed it.
Do you know anything about his time in "Guelph, Toronto, Buffalo, New York and Chicago"? Any newspapers he worked on? Was it as an apprentice or something or like a travelling tradesman? He then gets married in 1877 before returning to Canada in 1875. Perhaps you can rephrase this a bit? (...Chicago until 1875. In 1877, he married...) and then later (After his 1875 return from the US, he ..)?
Unfortunately there is absolutely no information beyond the fact that he worked at newspapers in those cities. I've reorganized it with your second suggestion, since I know he returned from the US but can't say it was from Chicago specifically.
Glocke: I assume he moved to Walkerton, 110km from Berlin? I like how you describe Rittinger's time at the Glocke, but I'm less happy with the first couple of sentences; somehow the two founders and their politics and their new newspapers are a bit convoluted and don't flow as well as the rest of the section.
I know he moved from Walkerton to Berlin in 1904 after the Glocke amalgamated into the Journal, but I don't have anything saying when he first moved to Walkerton.
Berliner Journal: "This joining — (something else) — were made" doesn't read so well. Also, what does it mean that they were joined to "strengthen the resolve of the weakening German press"? Is this just fancy speak for "In a declining market for German-speaking newspapers, several were consolidated"? (Also, on first reading, I thought the other newspapers had been merged with each other, not merged into Rittinger's. Perhaps you can disentangle this a bit for people like me who can't read).
Agreed. Reworded accordingly.
The numbers for circulation and subscribers don't quite add up to me. I would expect a newspaper to have a greater number of copies sold than subscribers. Peak circulation 5154, subscribers falling to 4419 looks like subscribers were actually pretty high?
This was a mistake in terms on my part. The numbers refer to circulation in all cases.
Who is Kalbfleisch? (in case you don't know, Kalbfleisch is German for veal.) I don't think he has been introduced so we don't know why his opinion is important.
Whoops, specified Scholar Herbert Karl Kalbfleisch at his first mention.
Klotzkopp section: Did most locals acquire Pennsylvania German later in life?
I've expanded on this a bit. The dialect was common locally in Ontario and newspapers across Canada published letters in it.
We need an article about Hermann Boeschenstein, who had a medal named after him, and (incidentally) was the PhD advisor of the subject of an article I wrote last year, Robert Ludwig Kahn. (There is de:Hermann Böschenstein, but that is someone else). I've started at User:Kusma/sandbox/B. The review by Herd that I cite also has a little about Joe Klotzkopf: "The humour probably appeals more directly to the reader who is himself well acquainted with Pennsylvanian German [..] for other readers the parody is not so obvious, and the humour loses its spice."
Very interesting. I've red linked his name in the meantime. What page in Herd does that quotation come from? And is it Herd commenting on Klotzkopp, or is he quoting Boeschenstein?
I don't find the letters that inaccessible (but don't tell anyone, as this is WP:OR). With a little knowledge of SW German dialects plus English, the samples I tried were not hard to read, and certainly easier than the Pennsylvania German Wikipedia. (So you'll find millions of Germans who could read them). Given that you explain that many of them have actually been translated, this also contradicts the "inaccessibility" a bit.
While the letters have been translated, one aspect of the inaccessibility is that they have never been published together in a collection. If I, a non-German speaker, want to go read them, they only place to find all of Kalbfleisch's translations are in the archives of the local newspaper.

I think I'll leave you with these comments for the moment and will come back for a second pass when I have seen your response. —Kusma (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kusma, responses above. Tkbrett (✉) 00:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkbrett: I'm very happy with your corrections. I think the remaining sentence that I don't like too much is "Though many struggled to read it, the popularity of Rittinger's editorship maintained much of the paper's appeal." Does "it" refer to the paper, the editorship, or the German language? It is also a bit odd that popularity creates appeal here. As for Herd, what I quoted is from p. 157 and in Herd's voice, but there's more there ("the humour is naïve and popular") and a Boeschenstein quote that you might be interested in. If you can't access the article anywhere, wikimail me and I'll send you the PDF. —Kusma (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, I've reworded that part in hopefully a clearer way. I also went ahead and sent along an email. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 11:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkbrett: that's better. I think we're done here, good job! I'll assume you won't break anything when/if you add info from Herd, and will go fill the paperwork for GA. —Kusma (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table

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.	Spelling and grammar were fine from the start, and any slight issues with clarity were addressed satisfactorily during the review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No problems here.
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.	Well-presented referencing.
	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).	Good sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything comes from the sources...
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	... but is not plagiarising them.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses everything I'd like to know about a newspaper owner/editor and humorist.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The details are all appropriate for the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine. Conflicting viewpoints (or just different people making different factual errors) are presented in a dispassionate neutral voice.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine.
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.	I hope I understand Canadian copyright correctly.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	A Good Article.