Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joseph Dart/1

Joseph Dart

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: With no remaining objections, I find a consensus that this article has been improved sufficiently to retain its GA status. Thanks to all who participated. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:DCGAR, I am submitting this article for a reassessment so that it can be further scrutinised to avoid the automatic delisting. I originally did the GA review and have made a number of changes recently to reassess citations and explicitly verify that the prose is accurate, correct and not violating copyright (this remains ongoing). I have already replaced some unobtainable book citations, either with those I could verify or alternate online sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:46, February 16, 2023 (UTC)

Bungle please ping me when you have finished your cleanup effort, and I will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, I will (and thanks for signing for me, I wasn't aware the script did not do this automatically!) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Bungle I see you progess has stalled; update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I have been making some notes on other bits (as I am not one for bit-edits), but also got distracted by an IP editor asking me on my talk page to develop numerous articles! That said, I wasn't aware we were on a specific time limit? You're more than welcome to check over the bits I have already scrutinised though, this doesn't necessarily have to wait until I have assessed the final sentence. If you identify any significant concerns on the earlier parts of the article, that may give pause to the whole thing, but if not, i'm happy to push on still. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

No concern; just checking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

no deadline on this - I'm just checking through open GARs, there's no copyvio I found, so take your time. In terms of text, it seems fine, even if it could be cleaned up a little, It'll be on the verification of the sourcing that is currently there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to try and get the remainder of the prose done over the next few days (that being, individual verification) so at least then it can be considered as to whether it can remain under the current designation. I am mindful as to the reason these GARs were raised and that we aren't needing to look at a WP:TNT situation or otherwise a total blitz - it's essentially just ensuring the expressed concerns relating to articles by DC in general don't exist.

From what I have done so far, nothing alarming is standing out to me and much of what I couldn't verify with the offered sources I could from elsewhere (and the few things I couldn't were of relatively insignificant value anyway). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not just about failed verification, and source-to-text integrity with DC content; copyvio of all sources has to be evaluated. Do you have access to Mingus? If not, all of that content needs to be WP:PDEL'd. The first source I checked (Smith p. 215) is closely paraphrased. While it may be public domain, we still have to get it right. Misrepresentation of source: "An example given by one report is of the schooner John B Skinner,". ... one report, unless I am reading the source wrong, is Dart's report, so that is misleading. This is not grammatical: He was the first person to make the application of elevating grain out of transporting ships using mechanical power and has since become the system for unloading freighters throughout the world. And it doesn't seem supported by the source. And, sourcing a statement about since throughout the world to 1879 is just wrong. So far, from what I'm seeing, this is a delist with the same problems as the others, and I haven't even started on copyvio checking other than the first Smith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You are of course very welcome to offer feedback during and after I have made various amendments. Whether it results in the status being retained or not, it'll still (hopefully) be improved further than beforehand (so either way, the process is beneficial). Mingus source is available as free page previews in google books, which I have been able to view without any special access. I don't think there are serious concerns over close paraphrase of PD sources, and where this is verbatim or close, we can note this appropriately (I think that's a fairly standard process). Of course there are some parts I haven't looked at again yet, and others I plan to take another look at (as you rightly point out, the note on the schooner sentence being attributed to the subject themself is reasonable and should be stated as such). Kindly reserve making an absolute judgement until I have at least made an effort to look at every element, but please don't refrain from helpful suggestions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem; ping me when you're ready for a new look. I peeked today because your March 10 post poked my watchlist. It sounded like you were down to prose fine tuning, so I thought it time to check, and wanted to note there is much more than prose fine-tuning still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I am too far out on this now. I have pretty much gone through all the prose and verified the statements, while in large parts, I have entirely rewritten paragraphs and sections. All sources, even those so called "offline", I have been able to access freely and of the 4 book sources, one is PD-old and the other 3 have free pageviews via google books relevant to the pages cited. Others I have removed and replaced with open alternatives. I have worked on trying to re-paraphrase parts too, though many of the sources, particularly from newspapers already predate 1928 and thus would not have copyright restrictions attached (none the less, prose has not been copied verbatim). Earwig checker is pretty much clear, it's only flag being related to the direct quotation of the subject's own reflection, which is quoted and cited accordingly.

I think I can still do another read-over and possibly reword and reconsider a handful of parts here and there, but nothing substantial. I did have some concerns that the article was perhaps disproportionally representing the concept for which an article already exists, so I have tried to bring some focus back to the subject. Authorship stands at over 50% myself and 43.7% DC, although this should not be referred to as an indicator, particularly as I think this includes infobox, ref, cats etc for the latter. WWT shows in large parts my own amendments. Hence at this time i'd welcome feedback or expressions on anything that stands out as being particularly problematic, assuming it's not catastrophic. I am broadly hopeful that the article will largely be judged on the merits associated with one being judged "good", without excessive emphasis on its original primary contributor (understanding that the degree of scrutiny expected will no doubt be higher than a typical GAR). At the very least, I hope I have done enough to secure the article's safety from pre-emptive copyvio concern deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Lee Vilenski: Does this now need to posted somewhere so others are aware it should be reassessed? Who ultimately, given the circumstances, will take a lead on that and indeed the ultimate decision? Have these processes already been agreed upon? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The way GAR works is that if you are satisfied that the issues brought up that started the GAR are now resolved and that the article still meets the GA criteria, you can close and retain the article at any time. We do now have co-ordinators for this process, of which I am one, so if you are unsure, I can take another look through and see if there is anything additional that requires a look.

Realistically, we are looking to be convinced that plagerism (both direct copying from source and close paraphrasing) and that the info being cited is actually based on info in the cited claims (IE Verficiation). Traditionally the GA process has been quite loose on looking these pieces up, but with the claims about DC in tow, we need to make sure that this article meets both of those items before retaining. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the quick response. I think given the backdrop of the circumstances resulting in the need to open a GAR in the first place, it would be inappropriate for me to self-close without someone uninvolved also concurring with that outcome. Therefore I think it's best someone takes a look over to make that decision. The vast majority of citations here are all in public domain, so while I have made efforts to remove and not reintroduce any close paraphrasing, if anything of this concern is raised relating to a PD source, it shouldn't be a major concern to address or acknowledge in some way. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

SG review

Delist and send to WP:CP.

Struck, no longer in WP:CP territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• How has the content cited to Baxter been checked (that is a dead link)? The world's largest grain shipping port is begging for verification.

  That can be found in Mingus, page 15, but there are appearances that Mingus may have taken content from Wikipedia.

  And looking back in the article's history we find that exact wording comes from ... ta da ... a non-reliable source. That's a copy-paste and, worse, a claim whose veracity needs to be verified as it has spread via Wikipedia to other publications based on a very poor source.

• Content from Mingus (2021), appears too closely paraphrased and mimics structure, but looking back in the article history, one finds that content originally came from Malloy (2011)) (DC frequently changed citations without altering the text). Who had this content first? DC added text mimicing Mingus in 2021, which was when Mingus was published. Regardless, Wikipedia might move further away from Mingus wording, perhaps by re-using Malloy.

  It appears that Malloy might be a hobbyist blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I had intended to review further, but this is bad enough. This article has the usual source-to-text integrity problems found in DC work, copy-paste from non-reliable sources, and that's after looking at only two passages of text from two sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'll need to analyse your concerns when I have a little more time over the next few days, though i'd note that the baxter source was available up until very recently (certainly within the period of this being edited), while the mingus source is published with an actual publishing company, so under typical circumstances is not expected to be unreliable. The reliance on the sources you point out is minimal at best and much of the content has archive newspapers, or a pre-1927 book in one case. I'll have to look deeper into your concerns but I am not thinking this alone is catastrophic to the point of not being salvageable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It may not be catastrophic (yet), but it's an indication that the usual DC content and issues persist, and that everything else has to be checked thoroughly, with the usual application of WP:PDEL (I did not go further after finding these two). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: To address this head on may be best I think, especially as I don't think it takes into account the bigger picture.

1. Firstly, the baxter source seems to be online and accessible again (in full, as before) which directly verifies the claim you observe. This book was published in 1980, so while it's totally reasonable for a later book to publish the same fact/statistic, I don't think there is a concern around circular referencing (if that's what you were getting at, but I am unsure, so sorry if that was misinterpreted).
2. Secondly, I don't concur with a concern around close paraphrasing, as I have made efforts to rephrase many elements of this article, even where I didn't necessarily think it was an issue in its former state. There are only so many different ways you can phrase the same thing while ensuring integrity of the original source material, otherwise you risk introducing original elements from personal interpretation. Earwig is not detecting concerns on this article from that perspective and there is very little block text untouched from DC's original contributions. Other elements were added during the last GA review.
3. Thirdly, you express concerns around the Malloy source. The reliance of prose on this source, as I previously noted, is very minimal and most of that text is inconsequential as to whether it's included or not. That said, I do actually accept that [if we consider what represents] a reliable source, I can't say absolutely that I would vouch for it unquestionably. Perhaps the prose that would benefit from an additional, or replacement citation is the 2nd sentence in the Legacy section, and I am happy to revisit that and either replace citations or reconsider the structure of this prose. If that specifically is a concern, then I accept it can be looked at again.

I do observe from another GAR that you openly express your lack of experience when it comes to GA reviews. I actually don't have an issue with this, if you're at least coming in to the discussion with an open mind and not with a mindset that anything DC touched is unrecoverable. A typical GA may have many suggestions for improvements, or expressions of concern that could benefit from being addressed to satisfy a reviewer's criteria for assigning GA, but a quick fail, as it seems you suggested above, is reserved only for the most catastrophic of articles, or those where significant rewriting remains necessary. My focus on wikipedia is, and always has been, content creation and I am looking at this article not strictly as a DC salvage, but as an interesting subject who's achievements and legacy are deserving of a quality article. If you're happy to collaborate in achieving that goal, then that's great. I'd certainly take on board suggestions for further improvement, as very few articles could ever be considered finished. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not helping my frame of mind that you persist in mentioning Earwig, which does not detect DC isues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting it should be used exclusively to detect copyvio related concerns, but even in a scenario where prose was direct-copied from one source and cited to another, earwig would still be capable of returning the source it came from (admittedly, it's not a perfect solution, but can at least offer an easier interface for assessing concerns around paraphrasing). I really don't have an issue if you express concerns or elements that need further improvement or reassessment, as long as it's fair and proportionate. As I have previously noted, a considerable proportion of source material is historic and so we shouldn't really be in a situation where copyvio is an alarming concern, or at least not to the point of needing to WP:TNT (which is why I took this on, unlike other articles). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Butting in: I've done a single random spot check. Our text says, "They lived on Swan, South Division and Erie Streets successively, when each was in it's heyday." "They had successive residences on Swan Street, South Division Street and Erie Street during their heydey" [edit: struck c/p error]. The source's text says, "They lived on Swan, South Division and Erie Streets successively, when each was in it's heyday." Also, the source is a blog. How is it RS? Victoria (tk) 17:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not. Not only that, this article is plagiarizing a non-RS:

• Article: Within fifteen years of construction, Buffalo had become the world's largest grain shipping port with ten elevators, surpassing cities such as London in England and Rotterdam in Holland.[11]
• Buffalohistory: Less than fifteen years after Joseph Dart's invention of the grain elevator, Buffalo had become the world's largest grain port, surpassing Odessa, Russia; London, England; and Rotterdam, Holland.

I think our work here is done; it just doesn't seem like Bungle is addressing the issues as they are raised, and the walls of text are tiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: That isn't the article's text. However, I already noted above that much prose attributed to this source is inconsequential. We can remove the line entirely if necessary, but it's not verbatim, despite your claim.

@SandyGeorgia: That statistic is from the 1980 baxter source, page 2. I feel you are willing this article to fail, which is the complete opposite of what we, as volunteer contributors, should be striving to achieve. I have acknowledged that various parts can be revisited and even accept your concerns on the Malloy source in point 3. May I suggest, with respect, that perhaps just take a step back and return with a different mindset. I am disappointed you discount my response to you as a "wall of text". I am simply trying to acknowledge everything you expressed. I think, best pause here for a bit, reconvene in a few days perhaps. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, made a copy/paste error, fixed in in this edit. Victoria (tk) 19:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've said a couple of times that you can ping me when the article is ready for a new review. And yet it still uses non-RS; and to the best of my knowledge, RS are required on all Wikipedia articles. Feel free to ping me again to re-evaluate when the article is clean of copyvio and uses RS. (I can't help but notice that in all the time one spends attempting to clean a DC article, an editor could write five new GAs, but it's your time to spend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I just ask that we don't lose sight of why we're here, and I accept this article is not free of fault (despite continued efforts). I will, whether you agree or not, consider your views (I thought my bullet-pointed response, where I even express intentions to make further amendments, was the best way to demonstrate that, but clearly not). So, while I was surprised to see that you didn't think I was acknowledging your opinion, I still hope the ultimate aim of building an encyclopedia remains the collective objective (FWIW, yes, I can hear you, and I see the efforts you have gone to, and continue to do, with the whole WP:DCGAR situation, I just opted to put my efforts into trying to address a tiny part of it). Aside, I think I badly worded part of point 3, and can see how it sounds unlike what I meant, so i'll fix that now! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Five days after my last entry here, I have removed the non-RS because, more importantly, WP:ELNO. Also, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I was going to note this citation as part of a wider analysis, when I updated the GAR. You may observe I appended a better citation to the end of the sentence, however the source in question shows the stone marker and thus, the only thing this was verifying is that - there shouldn't be the usual WP:RS concerns as that citation wasn't being used to cite prose. I think sometimes, we can use common sense when deciding if a citation is useful or a concern or not. I hadn't actually updated the GAR yet to flag this (it can be removed, as it adds very little), however like always, ongoing feedback is welcome. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully you noticed my edit summary and comment above? Per WP:ELNO, we should never link to a website that hosts copyright violations. This overrules any other logic, regardless of what it was citing. You also shouldn't write the citation to a different source when you're actually citing buffaloah.com. If you have the actual original citation, (re SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), that's another matter ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

PS, WP:ELNEVER is the correct link (my apologies for the confusion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't me who originally added it, so admittedly, I wasn't actually aware of the latter part of your statement (different source) or the copyvio nature of the source? This is largely academic though as it's insignificant to the wider article and you saved me having to flag it as a query, your view of which I am not opposing (I was just offering you my train of thought). This is why I found a better citation for where he is buried, as I wasn't fully convinced the buffalonoah source was great (so I guess we somewhat agree on that). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

But if you can find the LaChiusa (original) source, you could use it ... anyway, sounds like it is resolved now.

I have not checked for close paraphrasing or need to attribute on any of the public domain sources; has someone done that, and what remains to be done here ? (I admit to being confused by your work pace :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I am dipping in and out of this, as exclusively focussing on this article would be a little exhausting, given the extent of how much is being scrutinised. As for your other question, I am not aware anyone has expressed that they have cross-checked anything else specifically, although I don't know who else is watching/following this either. Besides the directly quoted material, which is minimal, nothing else is verbatim, though I am mindful that the definition of what is considered "close paraphrase" can differ. We don't want to use Template:PD-old-text excessively, but I need to consider if it's necessary on any. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

So it sounds like you are slowly chipping away at checking that aspect ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps, in order to get the SandyGeorgia GAR seal of approval (which I think, without intentionally bigging you up too much, carries weight), it may benefit from an additional prose assessment against the (mostly PD sources) to determine if it's the best paraphrasing choice, or if PD attribution is required on any. I don't think we have any clear issues around WP:V at least. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who else is watching (hopefully someone who knows GA standards), but my interest is in seeing this move along so it can be off my To-Do list :)

To that end, I picked two sources (only) to spotcheck: citations 8 and 9 in this version, as they were each cited several times.

With 8, it is entirely possible that I am just having too much difficulty trying to decipher the newspaper.com clipping, but I could not see where the source verified most of the text, and I did remove some info that was borderline trivia. I thought it was perhaps the wrong citation?

With 9:

• source: In the year 1861, Mr. Ovingtoin withdrew, and the business has since been conducted under the firm name of Dart & Bro.
• article: Ovington withdrew in 1861, after which the business was known as Dart & Bro.
• source: Up to within a week the deceased had enjoyed very good health and had retained in a marked' degree the Vigor and the power of his mental faculties. He spent the greater part of the past year in visiting friends and relatives in the East ...
• article: Up to a week prior to his death, he had been described as being in "very good health" and had spent most of the year visiting friends in the east of the country.

Not so dreadful I would tag it for copyright issues, but less than optimal-- a pd-old-text would solve it, but it seems like more review is needed. I'm not the one to review for prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is, unless it's verbatim or practically so, then if it's a public domain source, additionally specified PD-attribution is usually deemed unnecessary? I guess this is very much a point of view issue as to whether it's too closely paraphrased. You could say "Ovington pulled out.." and "Within the week prior.." but it's all fairly trivial stuff.

As for the verification, well, the matter surrounding the Buffalo History Museum et al seems fairly clear to me on the citation offered (2nd column, quarter way down), however I concur that the aspect of being financed is not conveyed in that article, yet, through what feels like a thorough biographical research on this individual, I was sure I had read something that concurred with that, so i'll try and find it.

I don't know if you ever partake in FAC discussions, but if not, I think you'd do very well, for sure, in picking out imperfections and source-to-prose integrity. I mean, this article could be FAC quality if it gets through GAR(!) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time deciphering where the tongue-in-cheek part starts ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to have another run-through of this at the weekend, as I can't easily put my eyes on an article supporting Dart financing construction. What I can see is this implied numerous times, but my concern is that citations implying this and the article stating it as so is into WP:OR territory. The amendment to the prose is reasonable enough to moot that. This is afterall a GAR and that means there is no absolutely expectation of featured-quality prose. I will none the less reassess over the weekend, but I think the article should, soon, be judged against the typical GA criteria and the core concerns raised through WP:DCGAR. I reaffirm my hope this can retain a GA allocation, and even if not, is considerably improved. I extend acknowledgement to SandyGeoriga for continued perseverance and identifying matters of concern. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bungle: What are your thoughts on the article's status at this point? Courtesy ping to @SandyGeorgia: as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: I am still meaning to give it another cursory look over, but besides removing a tag SG added that I responded to above, I am at the stage where I think that we need to decide if the GAR can be closed as retain or delist. Unless there are serious issues remaining that can't easily/quickly be resolved, then I wouldn't expect a delist, given the extent of improvements that have been made, but I obviously cannot make that call given my involvement. As with almost any article, there will be prose, grammar, phrasing etc that can always be improved upon, though we should be mindful this is not a WP:FAC. I'd like to put my focus onto other things now so i'd hope a decision is made one way or another. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood. From a quick glance, the article appears to be in much better shape. I see one failed verification tag. I am generally satisfied the sources are of sufficient quality and I don't see any uncited text. If we can't resolve the failed verification tag, we could just comment out the sentence and then I'd personally be comfortable closing as a keep, unless Sandy has any objections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The tag is what I referred to in my last comment and I also responded to the matter further up, but I was hoping SandyGeorgia would acknowledge this and opt to revert if in agreement that the source material supported that particular claim. The GAR has been open for a considerable period now and I think it's in everyone's interests to wrap it up at the earliest opportunity. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been an exhausting review, with some unnecessary back and forth (I still don't know where the tongue-in-cheek stops and starts). Bungle, back and forth references to earlier whatever are very hard to follow. What is the statement in question, and then please requote here precisely how it is supported by the source. That is how you can resolve this. Whether in a GA, FA or any other kind of review, or even in routine editing, when a source is questioned, the way to resolve it is to say the article says X, and the source says Y.

Trainsandotherthings to answer your question, it would concern me if this GAR were to be closed without any independent GA reviewer looking in here at all of the issues of concern in DC GAs, specifically:

1. Is the prose adequate for GA level ?
2. Are all claims supported by sources ?
3. Have all copyright issues been addressed, and is PD attribution needed anywhere? (Bungle seems to think not, so an experienced eye on attribution might be needed.)

It's troubling that no GA reviewer has looked in here, I am not a GA person, I seem to be the only editor opining on the review, and I don't pretend to understand the GA standards (because based on experience and what I've seen of all DC content, they are the equivalent of no standard at all, so I don't know if this article's prose passes or not, but I do know that another person needs to evaluate for copyright issues before the GA is kept). EEng might you have a glance here, as no one else is ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I just took a look at the failed verification tag. It's on He helped establish the Buffalo Water Works and was a founding member of the Buffalo Seminary, as well as a member of the Buffalo Historical Society.[failed verification][8] So fn 8 is to this Buffalo Sunday Times piece. To me, the first full paragraph in the second column of that piece supports all three of these points. Note that "projector" has a meaning of "one that plans a project" and that the Buffalo Seminary was originally called the Buffalo Female Academy. So what is unverified? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, WTR. As you can see from my edit summary, I had a very hard time reading that source.

• Article: He helped establish the Buffalo Water Works and was a founding member of the Buffalo Seminary, as well as a member of the Buffalo Historical Society.
• Source: he was one of the projectors of the Buffalo Water Works ... a founder of the Buffalo Female Academy

Your explanation covers it all. I hope that someone is going to engage to do an actual GA review and verify that copyvio has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I started to take a look too, and I'm afraid I immediately found a problem I pointed out before (over at Dart's Elevator, perhaps?), to wit the claim that his was the first mechanized elevator needs a better source. There's no way that the Buffalo Morning Express in 1879 can possibly have known that no power elevator had already been built in Finland or something. A claim like that needs a modern, scholarly source with the wherewithal to make such a determination. Typical DC misuse of sources. I'm afraid I stopped looking at that point -- I've got bigger fish to fry over at Talk:Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant. EEng 04:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

While not irrelevant, I'm concerned that questioning the integrity of reliable sources used shifts from what is expected of a GA. While we can rephrase to say "believed to be among the first.." or "at the time was believed to be.." but is it outside of the GA scope to verify the validity of what a newspaper at the time published? I don't mind rephrasing this, but like SandyGeorgia above said, it's been quite an exhausting reassessment and if we're going to start to scrutinise the integrity of what the historic source material published, that may be outside of the GAR scope and I don't know if anyone has the energy for that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if what you're saying represents the standard that been applied to these reviews, then a lot of effort's been wasted. Verifiability is the bedrock of WP, and that requires validating that sources are reliable. And no source is 100% always reliable for everything, or 100% never reliable for anything, rather the reliability of each source must be judged in light of the assertion for which its being used in a particular case. In this case, as I've already said, there's no way that a local newspaper in 1879 can conceivably know what it purports to know; it's local boosterism. If the statement's true, then there will be modern comprehensive sources on the history of worldwide commerce saying so. Without that best the article can say is "The Buffalo Morning Express claimed at the time that ..." And I'm afraid the Buffalo News from 1980 is hardly any better -- again, how is a local newspaper able to exclude the possibility of a prior mechanized elevator everywhere in the world in 1879? I'm serious about this. This is exactly the kind of source misuse that DC indulged in to get us all into this mess. EEng 12:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That standard has not been applied to any other DC work and it is these kinds of statements that have made this review so exhausting ... we have work from an editor that has been shown to be deficient in so many ways being defended on this GAR, and that has resulted in confusion to me about just what the purpose and standards at GA are ... I would understand if we were talking about B-class, maybe ... and we are well beyond the point of this not being worth the effort expended. I don't know who else might be asked to look at this article, but again, if this is the level of what is accepted as GA, I don't know what GA is about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone is quite exhausted with this and if we're now going to pick over and scrutinise the integrity and reliability of historic sources, I just don't think it's worth that effort. I think my point was that I do not know whether the GA standard requires this level of source scrutiny to the point of assuming doubt first... I typically don't witness it. The claim in question can be considered if googling "first powered grain elevator in the world" and while books also seem to concur, I have not the energy or inclination for this backwards-and-forwards approach.

Unless there is someone willing to take a look over this as an article, and not the odd statement, then it seems to me there isn't an appetite to keep the listing as-is, which is a shame. It's at least vastly improved and I do want to extend acknowledgement to SandyGeorgia for their time too. I think this needs to be wrapped one way or another. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

For EEng, I don't believe the other three that passed GAR have similar issues, and outside of WP:DCGAR we have still James Hood Wright at GAR (all reviewers acknowledge the familiar issues and Mackensen is at work), and Ramsdell Theatre passed GAR, with its "famous first" verified in James Earl Jones's own words. That is, all (five) that have been salvaged have been or will be mostly rewritten, and the ridiculous "famous firsts" dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Ealdgyth you do real reviews; might you look at the concerns here ? I realize you are quite busy with That Other Big Deal That DOES Matter, but hopefully this won't take too much of your time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I've looked over the page here ... and it looks like the disupte is whether or not the use of the local Buffalo newspaper's reporting is enough to establish that Dart's elevator was the first powered elevator ever? If that's the dispute, then I would say that a local newspaper's statement isn't enough to make such a statement. Especially not a 1879 newspaper article - newspapers in that time period need careful evaluation before being used as sources - which is what historians do. This is why we rely on secondary sources for statements - the historians are trained to evaluate primary sources and figure out whether or not their statements are backed up .... so such a statement in Wikipedia would need a secondary source (which the 1980s newspaper account is not) to state that Dart's elevator was the first powered elevator ever. (And yes, Trains, I know I still need to get back to the GA review... but the weather needs to behave around here... I'm fighting a balky sump pump in the middle of spring snowmelt when we got 17" of snow and 1" of rain ... thank goodness I have a supplmentary pump!) Ealdgyth (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

There are more contemporary sources regarding Dart's Elevator. For example, page 111 of William Cronon's acclaimed Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (1991), which says that it was the first steam-powered grain elevator in America and is one of the most unsung inventions in American agricultural history. It doesn't explicitly address the rest of the world, and the two footnotes on that paragraph are also America-focused. I don't know if any scholar has done the deep dive into agricultural transport and storage technology in 19th century Finland that EEng is looking for :- ) Wasted Time R (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That sort of wording and better sourcing is one of the ways the other articles have mitigated the DC "first facts" effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed the kind of sourcing I had in mind. I'm changing the article to simply state what we have an RS for: first in America.

A well-deserved shout-out to SandyG for staying with this depressing task for so long. I don't know why we're spending so much time trying to salvage a few isolated glints of GA brass buried in a mountain of DC slag and dogshit. We should have summarily delisted, and in many cases deleted, all these articles long ago. EEng 20:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Moss/Eisenstadt book, p234 states, "In 1842 Joseph Dart and Robert Dunbar introduced the world's first steam-powered elevator for unloading and storing grain", but if that isn't considered reliable enough for that statement, then stick with country-specific. I'm quite exhausted with this now so hope we can conclude this soon. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

While publication by Syracuse U helpful, I wouldn't accept a nonspecialist tertiary source for a statement about 19th-c industrial developments worldwide. EEng 20:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Has any third party yet looked at the old PD sources to make sure we are OK on PD-attribution? I find most of them near impossible to read ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I am removing the collapses here as today's editing of this article has seen the very non-reliable sources discussed in the collapsed content being re-introduced. @GAR coordinators: I will put a separate note on that editor's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I feel the @GAR coordinators: coords should make the decision here—we're coming up to three months open, and discussion here and improvement on the article appears to have stalled—so a collective decision from on high would be ideal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned by 7&6's changes to the article, which we need to evaluate. Notwithstanding those changes I was leaning towards a keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Those changes introduced two self-publisher book sources; I've removed them and any text that they uniquely supported. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

So at this point, between what I have removed and SandyGeorgia removed earlier, I believe the only things left of what 7&6=thirteen added are some links to publishers and a couple of minor wording changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, with those changes reverted I'm ready to close this as a keep, barring any objections. I'll leave this open for 24 hours, and if there are no objections I will close as keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.