Talk:William Goddard (publisher)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ezlev (talk · contribs) 03:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article! I've created two subsections below: one for {{GAProgress}} as an overview of the review's status and one for specific points to be raised and discussed. Any broader discussion can take place up here. I don't anticipate any major obstacles to GA status, but I'll conduct a detailed review below. Looking forward to working with you, Doug Coldwell!

Okay, I've conducted a review below and updated the progress box to reflect the current state of things. I'll now place the nomination on hold. Pinging Doug Coldwell as nominator as well as Gwillhickers who has expressed interest in being involved with this GA review. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review. I'll start working on the issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for failing this nomination at this time can be found at the bottom of this page (§ Failing). ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

Well written

Prose:

Second paragraph of biography: "Farley arrived from Bristol, England, in 1760, and the following year established the New-York American Chronicle, a newspaper for which Goddard and Charles Crouch were his journeymen in Parker's New York City print shop." Emphasis added, because the next paragraph mentions Farley's print shop burning down and ending the newspaper. Which is it? If it's both, can some mention of the switch be added?

Done - Source just says that his mother moved the family to Providence (R.I.) when Goddard's father died in 1762. Goddard then opened his first printing-office becoming the pioneer printer of the city.

In the following paragraph, does "the pioneer printer of the city" mean he was the first printer in Providence? If he was, let's just say that. If not, it's confusing phrasing.

Done

"He competed for Rhode Island's business with the market that Franklin's press in Newport had already established." Again, confusing wording makes it so I'm not completely sure what this means.

Done

"he maintained that a free and open press did not require that he print any rancorous scribbling that he might be presented with, and that any such freedom had to be employed with a measure of discernment and a responsibility to the truth." I absolutely love the phrase rancorous scribbling, but this sounds like an unquoted quote to me, or at least close paraphrasing?
Describing a newspaper issue as "extraordinary" in wikivoice without further explanation isn't ideal.
In the first paragraph of the later years subsection, two Goddards are in play; which one is being referred to should be further clarified.

Done

The mid life and later years subsections aren't in chronological order. Some events mentioned in mid life take place after later years, even. This makes for a very confusing reading experience. Do you think there's anything that can be done to improve that?

Done

MOS:

For such a substantial article, I would love to see a more substantial lede. A slightly shortened version of the existing paragraph would make a great first paragraph, and then a couple more paragraphs could go into some more detail.
Other relevant MOS guidelines appear to be met.

Verifiable

Reference style: Very nice! Reliable sources:

"Congress had to deal with other urgent matters and had to delay Goddard's proposed plan until after the Battles of Lexington and Concord in the Spring of 1775." Unsourced.

Done

The sentences beginning "Franklin served as..." and ending "Franklin died in 1790." are unsourced.

Done

No original research: Looks good Free of copyvio: A few bits need phrasing further from the sources:

"In January 1784, his name was added to the colophon of the newspaper while his sister's name was dropped."

Done

"Prime Minister Lord North introduced the first measure, the Boston Port Bill, on March 18, 1774"

Done

Doesn't look done – wording is what needed changing here to avoid copyvio

Reworded. Will that work?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broad

Addresses main aspects: Certainly! Stays focused: Well enough, I think

Neutral

There are a number of instances of non-neutral phrasing in the article, including but not necessarily limited to:

"Goddard in revolutionary defiance circumvented these efforts by designing an alternative, and distinctly American, postal system and challenged the Crown post, and the principles of free speech that it was supposedly founded on, by creating the Constitutional Post which among other things involved establishing a postal route in and between Philadelphia and New York."
"Goddard continued to publish his paper in Baltimore for thirteen more years and was never again harassed. After Lee died in 1782 he left Goddard, his good friend, a sizable portion of his estate. Goddard was a staunch anti-imperialist and an ardent defender of the fundamental American ideals of Freedom of the Press. He fought both the Loyalists and the Patriot to maintain freedom of the press and freedom of expression."
"Naturally he was disappointed when Franklin was given the position of Postmaster-General by the Continental Congress. However he naturally conceded to Franklin, who was 36 years his senior, and to his many years of experience as postmasters and reluctantly but graciously agreed to serve instead as Riding Surveyor for the new U.S. Post Office."
"It was not until after the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 that a law passed on September 22, 1789, which created the federal Post Office under the new government of the United States and authorized the appointment of a Postmaster General who was subject to the direction of the President Four days later President Washington appointed Samuel Osgood to become the first Postmaster General under the new United States Constitution. Along with the efforts of Benjamin Franklin who pioneered the colonial mail system, Goddard and the Constitutional Post influenced Franklin greatly and aided him in producing a system of mail delivery for the united colonies that is still in use today in the United States and elsewhere." How is the last sentence relevant to this paragraph?

Could you be more specific? I'm not really seeing anything that is less than neutral here. e.g.We all know the revolutionaries defied the crown, so to say "Goddard in revolutionary defiance", imo, merely exemplifies that idea. This is not favoring the patriots over the crown, but only relates the sentiments of that time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Gwillhickers, I can elaborate. "The revolutionaries defied the crown" is a statement of fact. "Revolutionary defiance" is a value-charged description of Goddard which reads to me like non-neutral puffery. I have the same issue with the descriptions of Goddard as "an ardent defender of the fundamental American ideals of Freedom of the Press" and as reluctant but gracious. I just have trouble seeing how it isn't non-neutral language. I anticipate that there's more like this in the article, so I hope we can reach common ground about what is and isn't appropriate. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both terms employ the idea of 'revolutionary' and' defiance', so I'm not seeing this big difference concerning neutrality. Having said that I can go with either term. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting one more more neutrality issue:

In the lede, Goddard is described as "a watchful defender of the fundamental American ideals of freedom of the press and speech"; watchful defender is editorializing.

I already changed the statement in question from using "ardent defender" to "watchful defender". We can simply drop "watchful" if that really amounts to something less than neutral. It would be nice if we could intimate these ideas without favoring the patriots or the British, which I though we had, and so the statement doesn't read like something out of an inventory report. I'm open to suggestions. Meanwhile, I'll drop "watchful". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

Stable enough, I think.

Illustrated

I love the design of old newspapers. Illustrations used are in the public domain with the exception of the photograph, which is CC-BY-SA-4.0.

Comments

@Ezlev: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Thanks for the work you've done so far. Most of the prose issues I flagged have been addressed to my satisfaction, with the exception of the "rancorous scribbling" point – I don't know if that sentence is appropriate in wikivoice even if it isn't copyvio – and an explanation of why the newspaper is "extraordinary" or the removal of that qualifier. I like the changes to the lede, and made a few of my own, which you're welcome to tweak as well – that's definitely headed in the right direction.

The neutrality issues I raised appear to have been addressed, but I came across a new concern while double-checking that they were: the entire section beginning "when the Crown Post refused to deliver the newspaper in the mail" and ending "much of the political life of the city prior to and during the revolution" is sourced to this page, which not only doesn't support the description of the Constitutional Post as distinctly American or a circumvention/defiance of the Crown, but also presents it as a failed subscription-based private post, which doesn't come across at all in the article. The subsection focused entirely on the Constitutional Post uses different sources, but both the narrative and the sourcing appear to have some gaps. For example, the entire section beginning "Goddard's Constitutional Post proved to be a success" and ending "instead named Benjamin Franklin as the first American Postmaster General" is sourced to something someone said in a congressional hearing, which wouldn't necessarily be a reliable source even if it supported all the content it was cited to support (it doesn't appear to do so). The earlier chunk of the same paragraph, which cites this page, isn't adequately supported by its content either. In all these cases, the content in the article inflates Goddard's significance and accomplishments compared to what the sources say. Spot-checks suggest that there are more issues like this throughout the article, with most of them likely related to the Constitutional Post – for example, the first paragraph of the Constitutional Post subsection is inadequately supported by the same Smithsonian page along with this dead link, while several sentences beginning "One of the first issues for the delegates" are cited to a source that contains a fragment of a book review of a biography of Goddard and the full text of a review of a book on Franklin but says nothing about any of the content it's cited to support in the article.

I have no doubt that this article was nominated in good faith and after extensive work was put into it, but these pervasive sourcing issues (possibly linked to neutrality issues) make me think the best course of action is to fail this nomination, with absolutely no prejudice to a re-nomination when the nominator has reviewed the sourcing and believes all content in the article accurately reflects the cited sources. I won't take any action before hearing what you think, though, Doug Coldwell? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns you have I am not familiar with. I believe Gwillhickers is better acquainted with those parts since he has 66% authorship into the article. Let's let him address those issues first and go from there.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "rancorous scribbling" is actually part of a quote made by Goddard. Here is the entire quote:
Goddard insisted that Press Liberty "does not consist in publishing all the Trash which every rancerous, illiberal, anonymous Scribbler may take it into his head to send him".<Martin, 1994, p. 522> If we present it as a quote would this be acceptable?
Re: "pervasive sourcing issues": I'm not sure what the difficulty here is. Every source can be viewed on line. The journals used as sources can be found at JSTOR, where all one has to do is sign up, which will allow for immediate full viewing of any journal there. Scholarly historical journals are among the most reliable sources out there, so I'm not quite understanding why this is presenting you with difficulty to the extent where you are thinking about failing the nomination. I believe both Doug and myself will continue to address and comply with any issues you present us with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, I have no objection to keeping the nomination open if you're confident the issues can be addressed within a reasonable timeframe. (I also have no objection to using the "rancorous scribbling" quote you mention above.) As I said, I only thought of failing the nomination because I worry that the poor sourcing I noticed so far might mean there's more I haven't yet noticed – there could be a lot of work that needs doing here. I have a JSTOR account and TWL access, so viewing sources hasn't been an issue and I don't anticipate that it'll become one, but the issue isn't with paywalled sources. I can see the sources, which is why I can see that there are several cases where they don't support what the article says, and I don't have the capacity right now to look for sourcing for unsourced statements in this article as part of my review.

Still, I'm happy to keep the nomination open for now. For starters, the five sourcing issues I pointed out in my last comment will need to be addressed. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ezlev. By all means, if a given statement isn't supported by a source I'll be more than happy to do any legwork involved to make matters right. Speaking for myself, I don't include statements that are not supported by a source, as I'm sure Doug does not. This is not to say I never make oversights, but I'm reasonably confident that all statements are well sourced, though some statements may need more clarification. The passage covering Goddard's failed postal route, etc, sourced by Independence Hall Assoc is not of my doing, as I never used an entire template as an inline citation, and I rarely use website pages as sources. I'll look into that passage and the others you pointed out directly. Also, though I may disagree on a point about what constitutes neutrality, your review has been more than fair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you think so, Gwillhickers! Ping me when you think I should take another look – I'll look forward to continued collaboration! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezlev and Doug Coldwell: I have tended to the items mentioned above, rendering them more neutral. A small paragraph was rewritten, while I've added a number of specific citations for some items. The markup could use some clean up as there are a number of templates mixed in with the text that should be moved to the bibliography, but I believe they pose no GA criteria issues. Will tend to them soon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your extensive work on this, Gwillhickers! I have more notes, but you'll notice that they're getting more minor, which is a sign that we're getting closer to a successful GA!
- "as the revolution became more eminent." Not sure what eminent means in this context. Imminent? Something else?

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- The section beginning "Almost entirely on his own, Goddard" and ending "operating from New Hampshire to Georgia" appears to have an SFN but no matching full reference

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- "Goddard's plan, now known as" to "on Christmas Day, 1775" is still unsupported, citing the Smithsonian essay which doesn't support the assertions in the article

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Overall, the Constitutional Post coverage looks better but still not perfect – I see some contradictions. Was the Constitutional Post adopted or adapted (or copied, imitated, replaced, etc) by the new US postal system? Was it the Constitutional Post that was successful, or the new US postal system?

The Constitutional Post used a series of new postal routes established by Goddard, as it was trusted and used more ("adopted") than the existing royal postal system. However, in the last sentence in the American Revolution section it says, "Goddard's experiment with the new postal route, however, proved unsuccessful". Still in all I removed the word adopted, as simply saying the post was implemented still conveys the idea. I also added a couple of points of clarity explaining why Goddard's postal system ultimately proved a failure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- "It was not until after the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 that a law passed on September 22, 1789, which created the federal Post Office under the new government of the United States and authorized the appointment of a Postmaster General who was subject to the direction of the President." Ok, but then how was the previous system different? Or really, is the short paragraph beginning with that sentence even relevant?

Done - Removed the paragraph. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Discussion of the Constitutional Post in the "American Revolution" subsection still contradicts the information in the "The Constitutional Post" subsection above it.

I'm not clear as to what ideas are contradictory here. if you could be more specific, I'll tend to it directly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Can the paragraph beginning "Goddard continued to publish his paper in Baltimore" be eliminated by adding some of the information to the previous paragraph and some to the next section?

Done — Moved paragraph to more appropriate location. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Doug Coldwell. Thank you both for your ongoing dedication and responsiveness! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: I think you have a better idea on how to answer the remaining issues than I do. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezlev: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few more issues, getting steadily minor-er:
- Taking the first step, the Continental Congress assumed control of Goddard's postal system on May 29, 1775, when a committee headed by Franklin worked out its organization. On July 26, 1775, Congress took over the postal system which at that time, through Goddard's enterprise and personal industry, was operating from New Hampshire to Georgia. Is the difference between these two facts "Continental Congress" and "Congress", or "assumed control" vs "took over"? Or something different? In any case, a bit of clarification is needed.

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- The events of July 26, 1775, are mentioned three times in quick succession but described differently each time. Can this be consolidated a bit?

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- The statement that "Goddard's experiment with the new postal route proved unsuccessful" still seems to contradict the fact that it was taken over by Congress. Reconciling the two ideas would add some clarity.

Congress assumed control in May 1775, in the first month of the war, (as mentioned in The Continental Post section) but as the war dragged on difficulties emerged, and in that event Goddard's postal route proved less than successful (as mentioned in the American Revolution section). The two statements are in different sections and seem to have enough context as they are. I'm not sure what else can be added to clarify these ideas further, but if someone can better clarify that, per sources, that would be fine by me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to Doug Coldwell, Gwillhickers ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: When you have finished addressing the two issues above, can you place a "Done" template there, in the middle center below any notes and sign it (indented like I did). Then the reviewer knows when you have addressed these issues brought up = thanks. This then should pretty much finish this up.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezlev and Doug Coldwell:

Done — Okay the statement in the The Constitutional Post has been changed by dropping "assumed control" as at that time Franklin, heading a committee appointed by the Continental Congress, were hammering out the working details of the new postal system - they had not actually "assumed control" at that point. By July 26, 1775, however, they had assumed official control over the establishment. There are no other details available from Wheeler, 1938, outlining what this involved exactly. No doubt Congress, Franklin and Goddard had achieved a consensus and documents were signed to that effect -- items, imo, which seem to be non essential in terms of Goddard's involvement. If this is acceptable then I believe we are done here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezlev: All further issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

Failing

Doug Coldwell and Gwillhickers, thank you for your work on this article both before and after its nomination for GA. Unfortunately, I'm still not satisfied with the article's treatment of the Constitutional Post and its coverage of Goddard's relationship to the Post. I realize this may seem sudden, but I've tried to address the issue from a few angles in my comments above, and the major gaps I've tried to point out still remain. The text of the article doesn't clearly explain when the Constitutional Post stopped being Goddard's and became a part of the government, describes it both as a plan Goddard proposed and as an actual system Goddard implemented himself, and states both that "Goddard's experiment with the new postal route proved unsuccessful" and that "Goddard's Constitutional Post proved to be a success". These are individual examples, but the lack of clarity runs throughout the article's content – even after more than two weeks reviewing this article, I still don't feel like I understand what the Constitutional Post was and how it connects historically to the postal system the United States has today. It's of course possible that I'm just missing something, but even that is a problem, since I've read through the article many more times and with much greater focus than the average reader will.

Because of all that, I've decided to fail the nomination at this time. This article is much closer now to GA status than it was before the review began, but it isn't there, and the issues have not been resolved by the productive edits that have been made in the more than two weeks it has been open. I believe a comprehensive rewrite of the article's coverage of the Constitutional Post will be needed before this article can reach GA status. I apologize to the nominators for this disappointment, and I do hope to see this article reach GA – I just don't think it's going to happen during this review. I'm happy to clarify or further discuss my reasoning for this failure below or on my talk page. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on

@Ezlev and Doug Coldwell: — Thanks for your review Ezlev. However, the points you don't seem to be clear on are acutaly explained in rather simple terms, and cited, in the article:

"I still don't feel like I understand what the Constitutional Post was..."

The crown post was run by the Crown, the Continental Post was run by the colonists, using its own system of postal routes, as the article explains :

"Among other proposed reforms, Goddard stressed the idea that the various Constitutional Post Offices should be under the jurisdiction of a central government..<Huebner, 1906, p. 136>

"Almost entirely on his own, Goddard established a system of postal routes and post offices, whose presence and use brought about the discontinuance of the British postal system."<Wheeler, 1938, p. 3>

..."and how it connects historically to the postal system the United States has today."

The Constitutional Post system was adopted by Congress and is the system that became known as the U.S. Post Office, as explained in the article :

"On July 26, 1775, Congress officially took over the postal system which at that time, through Goddard's oversight and organization, was operating from New Hampshire to Georgia."<Wheeler, 1938, p. 3>
"Franklin and Goddard persevered and in the midst of British scrutiny would create a separate postal system that ultimately became the postal system in use in the United States today."<Culter, 1914, p. 1835>

I respect your decision but I am not seeing where the article fails to make the distinction between the Crown and Colonial Posts, nor how it fails to make the historical connection between the Continental Post and the Postal system in use today. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gwillhickers, I don't disagree that the individual sentences from the article are clear – it's the overall historical narrative that I still struggle to parse. I'm happy to answer questions about my review here, but to be clear, the review is concluded. I definitely encourage you and/or Doug to seek another in the future, though I stand by my suggestion above that a comprehensive rewrite of the article's coverage of the Constitutional Post will be needed before this article can reach GA status. We essentially agree that the facts are there, but I'm not able to piece them together by reading the prose in its present state, and the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience is criterion 1a of the GA criteria. Even if my inability to understand is caused by a deficiency of mine rather than an issue with the prose, which may be the case, the solution is another review by a different reviewer in the future – not further prolongation of this one. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 08:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There's always more room for improvement, and as the section is rather lengthy with a good measure of details, perhaps a rewrite, and even some trimming, is in order. Many thanks for your time, effort and patience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezlev, you closed this review as a fail yesterday, and it was renominated by Doug Coldwell today after a number of edits. Do you believe that these edits addressed the reasons for the fail, and are you comfortable with the renomination? Also pinging Gwillhickers. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, because the edits since my close appear to have rewritten the section that I struggled to understand, and because my issue was with the clarity of the article (which is definitely subjective), I'm comfortable with the renomination. That's not to say that I believe it should pass, or that it should fail – I hope whoever chooses to review it will be thorough and fair, as I tried to be in my review. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stable article

@Doug Coldwell and Usernameunique: All the cite web, cite book and cite news templates that were in among the markup have been moved to the Bibliography, and linked with citation/links. After the past couple of days of editing by various editors it appears that the article is now stable. Speaking for myself, I am backing off from further editing, unless something important comes up that needs attention. Any additional and needed edits are of course welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]