Talk:Street newspaper/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nice job with this, this was a very interesting article. I hope you do follow through and ultimately push for FA status on this. Now, on to my review (please address each suggestion individually, and I'll cross them off as we go along)...

• First of all, I think the Description section should actually come after the History section, rather than vice versa as it is now. Since Description describes and lays out what street newspapers really are, it places History in a much better context and I think the whole article just makes more sense that way. I also think you could really just do this by copying-and-pasting without too much trouble; just make sure the sources and wikilinks (for first references) still make sense. What do you think?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean before the History section? Anyway, I can move it pretty easily if you want, I just want to make sure it doesn't make it too confusing...I agree with you that having more context before the History section would be nice, but at the same time my impression is that History sections often go near the beginning...and since right now most of the article is the Description section, that would mean putting History at the end. I dunno if that would be a problem or not, just figured I should check with you. (I guess another option is to have a sort of brief description for context before hte history section, and the detailed stuff after...but I don't think there would be any logical way to divide things up for that, and it would probably be a bit arbitrary.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, yes, I meant to have Description before History. I can understand why you'd think a History section would usually come first, but in this case, I think Description should be first. It seems you agree, so I'd go ahead with it. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • All right; I flipped it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't a big deal, but when you have multiple citations in a row for a single fact, make sure the citation numbers are in order. For example, make sure it reads like, "Many street papers face financial difficulties because of insufficient funding.[11][21][34]" not "Many street papers face financial difficulties because of insufficient funding.[21][11][34]" I fixed all the instances of this that I saw.--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, will do. I noticed that you cleaned up a lot of them; thanks :). Originally I think what I was doing is putting refs in one at a time and trying to put the best ones near the front, but I agree with you that this looks much better. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Intro:

• I think this first paragraph needs to be reworked. I think the first sentence places emphasis on the fact that they are partially written and produced by the homeless themselves, wheres I feel the emphasis should be on what the papers are and their primary aim. I'd recommend something like this, let me know what your thoughts are: "Street newspapers, or street papers, are newspapers that primarily provide coverage about homelessness and poverty-related issues and aim to strengthen networks of social benefits for the homeless and other marginalized individuals. Street papers also generally seek to provide employment opportunities, community networking and a voice for those marginalized individuals; the papers are often sold by, produced by and partially written by the homeless themselves. Street newspapers also seek to educate non-homeless readers about homelessness, although others place more concentration on mainstream news."--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I really like this wording of yours, and will probably paste it in almost exactly as you have it. The only issue that sticks out is that "primarily provide coverage about homelessness and poverty-related issues" really only describes one kind of street newspaper, and not the flashier The Big Issue-style ones. I'll try to think of a way to reword it to avoid excluding those ones. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've updated the intro, with some changes from your original suggestion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'm noticing that a lot of the sources do define street newspapers as "sold or written/produced by the homeless or former homeless," rather than on what they cover or whom they benefit (for example, the first sentence of the Torck reference is a wonderfully punchy "Street newspapers (SNPs) are newspapers or magazines sold on the streets by homeless people." Maybe I should re-rework the intro a bit to get that important fact closer to the beginning? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I'm satisfied with the new paragraph. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Historical foundations:

• "Another influential paper was The Catholic Worker, founded in 1933; this and most other papers published before 1970 were affiliated with religious organizations." Shouldn't it be "most other street papers?"--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. Thanks; fixed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Such newspapers were often created because mainstream news did not cover issues that were relevant to ordinary people..." This sounds like POV. Should perhaps be "...were often created because of the perception that mainstream news did not cover issues..." OR "...because the founders believed mainstream news..." ?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. It's my sources' POV, not mine, but it is still POV. I've used your "the founders believed..." rewording. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "...and thus these papers have similar origins as yellow journalism, workers' papers, and other forms of alternative media in the late 1800s and early 1900s." I'm not clear on how these papers have similar origins to these things? Can you clarify or reword? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe the source was trying to say that early street newspapers grew out of a lot of the same movements/issues/dissatisfactions as those other kinds of media. I was having a hard time working it in smoothly. I tried this rewording now: "Like yellow journalism, workers' papers, and other forms of alternative media in the late 1800s and early 1900s, early street newspapers were often created because the founders believed mainstream news did not cover issues that were relevant to ordinary people." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Very good. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Modern street newspapers:

• "...and frequent negative portrayals of homeless individuals by the mainstream media." Again, this sounds like POV. This can be addressed in a similar manner to my second objection listed above under Historical foundations.--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reworded to "homeless advocates' dissatisfaction over the mainstream media's portrayal of the homeless." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "(While Portland, Oregon's Homeless Times has been claimed to be the first modern street newspaper, Street News is the earliest-published paper that is still active.)" Drop the parenthesis here and work this into the normal prose of the article. Also, reword the phrase "has been claimed to be." And could you also perhaps add the date that Homeless Times allegedly started and disbanded, if that info is available?.--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Tried rewording it and putting it before the Street News sentence, but that didn't seem to work, so I ended up just keeping it similarly worded but sitting after a semicolon rather than in parentheses. Not sure if that'll get the job done or not...
    • Eh, that's fine. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As for the Homeless Times dates, unfortunately the NASNA reference doesn't say. I don't have access to the paper sources right now (I'll have to stop by the library to check), but I don't recall them saying anything either; the Green article might have it, but I'm not sure. Of course, there are also the four or five journal articles I have linked in the section above and haven't had time to read yet, so if I can't find the dates anywhere else I might give them a skim. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That's fine. I'm not going to hang up the GA nom on this, but for a future FA it would be worth including, so if you can ever get that info, I'd recommend you toss it in later down the road. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• "...the editor of one street newspaper..." Maybe it's worth identifying which paper and/or editor? What do you think? I'll leave that one to your judgment...--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea to me. Added. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "By 2008, an estimated 32 million people per year read street newspapers, and 250,000 poor, disadvantaged, or homeless individuals sold or contributed to them." Is this in the U.S. or in the world? You mention "in over 30 countries" in the sentence right before this, so I'm guessing its in the world, but could you tweak the sentence slightly to verify this?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep, it's worldwide (according to the source, at least). Edited. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "The International Network of Street Papers (founded in 1994) and the North American Street Newspaper Association (founded in 1997) aim to provide support..." Is it worth including something about their founding and purpose, perhaps near the end of the first paragraph when you describe the rise in popularity of street newspapers?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the Heinz article had a little bit about that; I'll try to check it out tomorrow. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Like the Homeless Times thing, I'm not going to hang up the GA nom on this one, but I'd suggest you try to add it later. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Coverage:

• "Since the purpose of the papers is both to educate the general public about issues facing the homeless and to provide support for the homeless communities, most papers report on issues regarding homelessness and poverty." This sentence reads as a bit redundant. You describe the purpose of the papers right before this, so I don't think you need to reiterate it. I'd suggest hacking off the first part of this sentence, then merging the rest with the second sentence in this paragraph. So my suggestion would be this: "Most street newspaper report on issues regarding homelessness and poverty, and many of the paper also feature contributions from the homeless and the poor, in addition to articles by activists and community organizers." What do you think?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks great. Thanks! Edited. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Many papers also feature profiles of individual vendors." What does this mean, exactly? Who are the individual vendors?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The homeless individuals who sell the papers. I tried rewording it to "also feature profiles of individual homeless vendors"...does that make it clearer? If not, I can try tweaking it some more. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • What about something like "of individual homeless vendors of street papers"? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I put in "individual vendors of street newspapers" (assuming that it should be implied that they are homeless) just in attempt to avoid being too wordy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• "...one historian has described street newspapers as having a 'native eloquence.'" When you use a portion of a quote like "native eloquence," you have to specifically include the name of the person who said it, even if it's already in the source. Can you add the name of this historian here?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Added (it's just the writer of the source, he wasn't quoting anyone, but I see your point). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Unlike most street newspapers, the UK-based The Big Issue focuses mostly on celebrity news and interviews, rather than coverage of homelessness and poverty." Can you add something to this about why The Big Issue is still considered a street paper, despite its lack of coverage on homelessness and poverty. Based on the criteria you explained right under Description, it almost sounds like this paper wouldn't even be considered a street paper based on this description, so I'd recommend you could add something explaining why it is.--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point; I added the following text: "It is still sold by homeless vendors and uses the bulk of its proceeds to support homeless individuals and advocacy organizations for the homeless, but the paper's content is mostly written by professional staff and geared towards a broad audience." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Although The Big Issue has attracted attention and controversy because of its stature, it is not the only street newspaper with this sort of business model; it is just an example of a whole category of street newspapers." This sentence reads ackwardly to me because of the second portion of it (after the semicolon). Could you try to reword it?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, tried to reword by breaking it up into a few sentences. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Social benefits:

• "Other benefits claimed for street newspapers..." The "benefits claimed for" thing is awkward to me. Can you reword?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Reworded to "In addition to providing some individuals with income and employment, street newspapers are intended to give homeless participants responsibility and independence, and to create a tight-knit homeless community." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Kevin Howley has described street newspapers as..." Who is Kevin Howley? I'm guessing you don't mean the English football referee. Can you add some context as to who exactly Howley is?--Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I just realized I quoted him above as well (in the Coverage section), so at the first time I cited him I just wrote "social scientist Kevin Howley," and the second time I trimmed it down to just "Howley." (And yes, it's not the football referee!) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Challenegs and criticisms:

• I feel like the last paragraph is a little thin. Could you maybe add some examples of anti-homeless legislation that has targeted street newspapers and vendors? Or perhaps there's more to say on the issue of a lack of interest in homeless issue among some demographics? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I added a bit about the anti-homeless legislation; there's more in Heinz but it's on a page I can't see from google books, so I might have to take a look tomorrow. I also added a little bit on the demographics (example of middle-class population in Calgary, same reference). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It's much, much better now. If you add more later, that's good too.

Thanks for your very detailed comments! I'll leave responses to issues above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To do (notes for myself):

1. Check Heinz for info about founding of INOSP and NASNA.
2. Look for founding and ending dates of Homeless Times

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes
5. Stable: Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes