Talk:Tom Kahn/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 04:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Seems mostly fine to this ESL, but in the first para, the colloquial dad should be changed to father. Please ensure this article has a professional tone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kahn was adopted, so his biological father was not his acting father, or dad. I agree that it sounds weird.
DONE! (long ago 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Please add a 2nd level biography section, and reorganize the sections. This also entitles splitting up a section on works/accomplishments/recognition and such from the biography. Currently the article makes it difficult to see what he was famous (notable) for. I don't like the look of "Selected writings" section, at the very least, why are some works indented? Also, 3 elinks are dead, please run the tool in the box above and fix or remove them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
"2nd level biography request: DONE! 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Dead links": DONE! I fixed the 3 dead links. You did that voodoo that you do so well on the references, changing the style, so that 3 hidden references were picked up. I removed those hidden subsections, thus fixing the problem with the 3 dead elinks. I shall fix the selected writings ~~in a day or so~~. KW
Look again, please. This section has been cleaned up: Republications (formerly indented) have disappeared. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DONE! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat unclear to me. It sounds like you want me to have a biography section (including the earlier written sections tracing his life history).
DONE!

Then you want me to have a section assessing his importance and legacy, and his written works. Is that correct? (I did not see any MOS mandate for this, but the implementing your suggest changes cannot hurt and may well help.

To me it self-evident that a man who proposed the March on Washington, wrote best strategical analysis for labor and civil-rights in the 1960s, and who raised 300 K USD for Solidarity (and continued to help with NED funding) was a great leader in U.S./world politics. I stuck to narrative of contributions, rather than assessments.

But perhaps, I should have more assessments? (Many of them were written by friends after he died, so they tend towards non-encyclopedic praise. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Insufficient reference density in one place. For example, first para in "Early life" has no reference. This is however the only exception, as other than that, the article seems to confirm to the "all sentences referenced" standard. A more serious problem seems to be bad reference formatting. To start with, I see ibids and other items discouraged by our MoS. The style is also confusing, what is the style used? I see cite templates, followed by harvard templates, with weird cites like "Gitlin, p. 119" (which Gitlin?), another citation begins with a page ("Page 305."). Some citation have quotations, which is not very helpful, as it makes them look like notes (I suggest remove the quotes or add them to the text). In fact, some citations are notes ("The prospects of Solidarity and the...", "Todd Gitlin later acknowledged that LID Director". They need to be split into references and notes. And three references seem not to be used in the main text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the one ibid., and then replaced Isserman with a harvard reference. I'll fix the others in a few days. KW
My apologies for the delay.

I split multiply used or essential references from the notes. Once-used references appear in the notes, as do some references that establish minor points (and that may be less than the highest quality, most reliable sources).

The citation of sources is now rather uniform.

Thank you for your guidance and patience. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "The style is also confusing, what is the style used? I see cite templates, followed by harvard templates, with weird cites like "Gitlin, p. 119" (which Gitlin?), another citation begins with a page ("Page 305."). Some citation have quotations, which is not very helpful, as it makes them look like notes (I suggest remove the quotes or add them to the text). In fact, some citations are notes ("The prospects of Solidarity and the...", "Todd Gitlin later acknowledged that LID Director". They need to be split into references and notes."

The cite ___ is the default. For some cases, its parental template, citation, is used, because of its additional fields for others=,origyear=, etc. The harvard templates work with citation; there is no inconsistency. Would you agree your dislike of harvard/citation templates may be a matter of taste? (C.f. Tulip mania.)

Where possible, I have separated notes and references. However, quotations with citations are used to established facts that were previously questioned by editor TheFourDeuces, about Marxist Leninists in SDS; per WP:Verifiability, citations must be given when things are questioned---hence the detail. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Seems fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Seems fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Most likely. This will become clear, hopefully, once biography is split from works and significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Ditto. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No red flags. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No red flags. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
File:Kahn, Bukovksy, and Bikel.jpg seems to be missing OTRS verification. This could be a problem at some point, and I'd suggest this is fixed sooner rather than later. I AGF this, but others may not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
No red flags. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold, waiting for a reply. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I made a few changes and shall fix the rest in a day or so. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selected writings section still not fixed. References are still a mess. It does not appear that remaining issues where fixed after the initial response here about certain issues fixed and the promise to address the remaining ones in the "next few days". If the issues are not fixed soon, I'll have to fail this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Piotrus. I'll fix some more. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did as much as I can do today. I think I fixed the most egregious problems. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. Few more suggestions: Domber ref should be split into three or more, to clearlyindicate which fact is referenced with which range. Frankly, I find the idea of a reference used three times and consisting of six ranges confusing. Why is Drucker defined in the footnotes, when most others aren't? If you want to use shortened references, it is common for all full citations to be moved to biographies (including articles). Notes need to be split from references. (ex. D'Emilio (2003, p. 278)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specific suggestions:

Domber. Domber is a careful resource which mentions Kahn on those pages. Domber is cited only for the general statement that Kahn did a lot to help Poland. The reader wanting more can just look at the pages. In this case, documenting a broad claim, the benefit to the reader outweighs your concerns, imho.
Drucker. Drucker is used only once, and not for an extensive quotation. In such cases, the complete reference stays in the footnote.
Notes/citations. I have split notes from references when it makes sense. The only cases where notes and references are blended is when I am citing quotations as evidence for potentially surprising or already questioned details. Such evidence would be a distraction in the article, but is there for those (aforementioned) who questioned whether SDS had problems with Marxist Leninists.

Finally, are Dombar and Thiel needed? Now they are only used vaguely. In the future, Dombar and Thiel should be used for an expansion of the support of Solidarity. Each looks like exemplary professional academic dissertations, where they both hit the archives and made intelligent interviews. They should be used to expand the discussion of Poland. Thiel discusses the Swedish/Lund connection a lot, and has interviews with the US ambassador Davies, Gershman, Chenoweth, etc. Dombar uses archival materials more, but is very careful: He describes smuggling of ink into Poland in Hershey's chocolate syrup containers. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the full split of notes and inline references is very helplful, I do not think it is required for a GA status. If you can add a ref to the "After resigning from SDUSA in 1973..." note, we should be good to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "After resigning from SDUSA in 1973, Harrington then founded the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (Isserman 2000, p. 424, footnotes 52-53)." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Passing now. Please note that further cleanup of the references will be needed before a FA class review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]