Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joseph Dart/1

Joseph Dart

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

Result pending

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.

• 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 as 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)