Jump to content

Talk:Dorothy Dworkin/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
PASSED
All issues with the article have been addressed and it now safely passes all GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! Thank you so much for nominating this for Women in Green's edit-a-thon! Dworkin looks like a fascinating and inspirational person, so I'm more than happy to take this article on for review. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Is there reason why her biography is segmented by types of work rather than giving a more chronological account? I ask because the current structure results in repetition of information, e.g. mentioning her 1911 marriage to Henry Dworkin three times. It also results in some temporal whiplash, like jumping from the hospital's move in 1968, back to her business in 1917, then from her death in 1976, to her philanthropic activities in the 1930s.
    @Grnrchst: The layout/organization of the article was my biggest concern while expanding it. I really appreciate any advice on this.
    Before I started editing it, there was a single mostly chronological biography section (oldid, it had a number of issues, but just considering the layout here). I could see that, particularly with the expansion, it would need organization into smaller sections. If I did it chronologically, the natural breaks would have been when she was married and when she became a widow, and I didn't want to present her life as defined by her marriage/husband – I felt that might be moving toward systemic bias and would take away from her considerable accomplishments. Arranging by subject seemed to me the better way to summarize it (if imperfectly executed), and more useful to the reader who might not want to read a whole beginning-to-end life story but be interested specifically in parts pertaining to Toronto hospitals or the Toronto Jewish community.
    After reading your comments, two layout changes occur to me. (1) Chronological; I'm not sure this is the best way to go, but I could try rewriting it (as a draft) for comparison. (2) Combining Early life and Personal life as the first section of the article, setting context for what follows. My initial approach was probably out of habit, but it splits similar material to opposite ends of the article. Option 2 seems good to me (and would be the easiest), so I'll give that a try.
    The other 'big' edit I've made is a one-paragraph expansion on the Labour Lyceum. I tried to do all of the review edits (below) first, then did the expansion and layout edits, so if you go to the earlier oldid the references should still be listed in the same order as in your review. I hope that won't be confusing.
    I think I've addressed everything except the final copyediting: paraphrasing of the one paragraph and trimming some of the extraneous material. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks a lot better. While there's still some overlap, there's less back-and-forth now. Cheers. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This was the quickest I'd moved an article up to GAN and I think it showed, but it's much better thanks to your review. I've added a footnote, trimmed a couple pieces, added one sentence to Legacy on the Ontario Jewish Archives featuring Dworkin in a showcase, and I tried moving the Lyceum paragraph down with Philanthropy. It balances the sections a little better and it didn't really fit under Business (not a for-profit venture). I also added a sentence to the lead to cover the Philanthropy/Union section. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]
  • Seems a rather small amount of information for its own dedicated section.
  • Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [4][1] Archeion says she was one of ten children, but Bill Gladstone says she had 11 brothers and sisters. Which one of these is correct?
    • No idea which is correct. Sources: 10 children (9 siblings plus herself), ArcheionBio, OJAbio; 11 children, OJAbio2 (About the "middle" of eleven children), Gladstone2013 (one of 4 boys and 7 girls). I don't know that any of these sources did a thorough records search. It may be that some siblings died in infancy and weren't included in some accounts. Shall I footnote the discrepancy in sources? – Reidgreg (talk)

Health care career and activism

[edit]
  • Try to keep the text focused as much on Dworkin as possible. I'm noticing quite a few deviations into more general context about the hospitals and such. While these may be important, they should be kept in due weight with the rest of the text. Stuff that's more about the hospital, but not directly related to Dworkin, should be moved to the article about the hospital, etc.
  • Spotcheck: [1][5][2]:9–10 It seems as though these source each only verify parts of this paragraph. Consider moving them each inline with the specific information that they're verifying in order to ease verification.
    • I was trying to simplify. Let me see. Gladstone2013 and Barsky1998 seem to cover all of it, so I removed OJAbio. Gladstone2013 covers everything except The Ward, Barsky1998 has The Ward and confirms the key information, which I thought was important since that part of Gladstone is from a primary source.
  • Which "Cleveland University" is this? It can't have been Cleveland University or Cleveland State University, as they were respectively before and after her time in Cleveland.
    • Gladstone2013 (Dworkin recalling events in 1960) is the only source on this and doesn't specify beyond the name. Some websites say Mount Sinai (Cleveland) was built near the University Circle neighbourhood, which is where Case Western Reserve University and the main campus of University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center are now located. Case Western Reserve was a center of the abolitionist movement and woman graduated as a doctor there in the mid-19th century, so seems like it might have accepted female Jewish students.
    • This says that Cleveland's Mount Sinai didn't get that name until 1913, and that from 1902 it was operated by the Jewish Women's Hospital Association with a private residence converted into a 29-bed hospital (sound familiar?). This says that Mount Sinai (Cleveland) added a nursing school in 1916 which was affiliated with Western Reserve in 1930.
    • In the archives, I found this letter of introduction from Kaufman to Davidson, but no useful hints about where he was teaching other than Davidson being on Cedar Ave.
    • At jstor, found Women in Cleveland: An Illustrated History which says the Cleveland hospital was originally on East 37th street and took the name Mount Sinai in 1912.
    Since I don't have anything definitive and 'Cleveland University' is ambiguous and doesn't fit the timeline, I've tried to gloss over it. – Reidgreg (talk)
  • Spotcheck: [1][2]:10 Likewise, it seems like these sources are verifying different parts of the information they're cited to. Consider moving them more inline with the specific information they're verifying.
    • Part of the sentence about Hashmall was only supported by Barsky, otherwise the whole thing is covered by Gladstone (but again, parts of Gladstone are an interview and Barsky may be a higher quality source confirming much of what's in Gladstone). I separated them. Do you feel the mention of Hashmall is a deviation and should be removed? – Reidgreg (talk)
  • Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [2]:12 Verifies the basement dispensary bit. But the detail about Ezras Noshem is cited on pages 21-22, so these should be cited inline with this information.
  • Spotcheck: [2]:12,21,23 The bit about Moshav Zekenim is on pages 22-23, so I'm not sure why 12 and 21 are being cited here as well.
    • For the two bullets above, I rearranged the 2 cites as 4 cites with pages 12, 21; 21; 12; 23.
  • Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [2]:23–25,33 Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [2]:31 Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [2]:32 Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [2]:41,48 Seems like first sentence is verified by page 41 and second by page 48. Consider splitting and moving inline.
    • Done.
  • Spotcheck: [8]
  • Spotcheck: [2]:131 Verified.

Business and publishing

[edit]
  • In what source is Henry called "Harry"? Looking through all of the ones cited here, I can't see any that describe him as "Harry".
    • Harry and Henry are both used in 4 sources: Gladstone2013, Gladstone2017, SinaiBio, and ParksArchives. I moved the Gladstone2013 [1] reference outside the parenthesis to properly cover the first clause of the sentence.
  • Do any other sources than Dworkin's own account mention "Chanan" as a variant of Henry's name? If not, it might be worth dropping it here, just for simplicity's sake.
  • Link to Ukrainian Canadians
    • Done.
  • Spotcheck: [5][4] Verified that he co-founded the Toronto Labour Lyceum, but I'm not seeing him described as a "Bundist" anywhere.
    • Having read further, him being a Bundist is verified by Polyphony, which isn't cited here.
      • Thanks, I misplaced my source on that. ParksBio also has that he was involved in "socialist politics" in Toronto. (This was social democratic, and decidedly anti-communist.) Added citation to Polyphony/Kayfetz1984. (I've put the citation in a comment for now so that it doesn't disrupt the numbering of citations.)
  • Link to Second Polish Republic, Kingdom of Romania and Latvia.
    • done. I also added OJA here to help verify they travelled to Poland-Romania-Latvia to help with travel arrangements.
  • Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [10][1] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [1][4] One source verifies the name of the company, the other verifies that she took over after her husband's death.
  • Link to The Holocaust
    • done.
  • Spotcheck: [6][5] Parks Canada references Dworkin helping people escape the Holocaust, but Ontario Jewish Archives doesn't even mention the Holocaust. Neither appear to reference "discriminatory immigration policies" either.
    • I think I was using OJAbio to verify it was "thousands" of immigrants. ParksBio has in a context when ethnically selective policies restricted Jewish immigration. Is that okay? – Reidgreg (talk)
  • Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
  • Why "pro-Bundist" and "pro-Zionist" instead of simply "Bundist" and "Zionist"?
    • Good point. Changed.
  • Link to Zionism.
    • done.
  • Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
  • "Dworkin had served as the president of [...]" When? Without a timeframe, "had served" reads strange.
    • Removed had. ArcheionBio doesn't say when. OJAbio also has this but doesn't say when.
  • Spotcheck: [5] Verified.

Philanthropy

[edit]
  • Link to Homeland for the Jewish people
  • Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
  • This all appears to be a bit too closely paraphrased from the cited sources for comfort. Consider rewriting a bit more.
  • This paragraph is far too short to require its own dedicated section. It doesn't seem particularly out of scope from the contents in the previous section.
    • I'd put all her hospital stuff in one section, business in another, and this was leftover – other philanthropic/charity work not directly related to healthcare.
    • I wasn't entirely sure what the Labour Lyceum was when I was writing this, and set it aside as being something for Henry rather than Dorothy, but I'm finding some more sources and could probably do a paragraph about it, making that part a bit less fragmented. – Reidgreg (talk)

Personal life

[edit]
  • Repeats information we already know about her marriage to Henry Dworkin in 1911 and his death in 1928. The rest of the information not already mentioned could easily be integrated into other parts of the article. There is no need for a separate "personal life" section.
  • Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
  • Given that Ellen has her own dedicated encyclopedia entry in Atanassova 2007, it may be worth redlinking her for a possible future article.
  • Spotcheck: [4][3] Not sure where the 15,000 number comes from, as both sources give "as many as 20,000" as the number of funeral attendees.
    • While "OJAbio" has 20,000, "OJAbio2" [3] has "more than fifteen thousand" written out. Added "Gladstone2017" which has both figures.

Legacy

[edit]
  • Spotcheck: [7][12] Verified.
  • Merge the sentence about the Canadian Jewish News into the preceding paragraph. Single-line paragraphs don't look good.
  • Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [14] Verified.

Notes

[edit]
a
  • Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
  • Might be worth mentioning that German name is historical, not in modern-day use.
    • done.
b
  • Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
  • "Wolf" vs "Wolfe" and "Sara" vs "Sarah" seem like they'd quite common differences in spelling, especially when transliterating from Yiddish. Is it important that we explicitly mention this spelling difference?
c
  • Spotcheck: [6][2]:10 Again, different parts are verified. [6] Verifies most of this, but [2]:10 verifies the bit about conversions by Christian missionaries.
  • "Thus," Cut this, just start with "There were".
  • "homey and welcoming" Think just "welcoming" would be fine, not need for "homey" too.
    • done.
  • Spotcheck: [2]:21 This verifies that the mitzvah was performed, but I'm not so sure about the rest of this. E.g. I don't see anything on this page about "employment and training opportunities for Jewish doctors and nurses" or that visiting hours were longer.
    • Added "SinaiBio" which has a hospital that would not only cater to the linguistic and dietary needs of reluctant Jewish immigrants ... but also employ Jewish doctors and nurses who were denied learning opportunities and privileges at other hospitals. I didn't find "longer visiting hours" so took that out, as it's implied by bikur cholim.
d
  • "Primarily those separated by the Russian Civil War (1917–1923) when several Eastern European states sought to reassert their sovereignty following the collapse of the Russian Empire." Source? Are we certain that this is the war that Atanassova is talking about or is this your original interpretation? Because when I see "the war" mentioned in such contexts, my mind usually jumps to World War I. And given the agency was established in 1917, the Russian Civil War wouldn't even have been going on at the time of its founding (it was ignited only in November and didn't really get going until early 1918).
    • A couple sources (ArcheionBio, OJAbio) say that the store opened in 1917 as a variety store "which later became/grew into" the shipping agency/travel agency. Atanassova does not specify but a footnote cites this to Stephen Speisman, The Jews of Toronto: A History to 1937 (with no page number; it's on Google Books but with a very limited snippet preview).
    • How about I remove "primarily" and list the conflicts of the time? – Reidgreg (talk)

References

[edit]
  • I notice that the cited article on Bill Gladstone Genealogy is actually 3 articles from various different newspapers. Perhaps you should cite the specific articles, in order to make it clear what source you're drawing from? This would be particularly helpful given that one of them is a primary source written by Dworkin, as it's important for readers to know when we are citing Dworkin herself or a contemporary news article.
    • There's a rule about not citing material unless you've read the source yourself, so I wasn't comfortable doing that (The last of the three was paraphrased). I've added a note to the citation. Or do you think I should make three separate references to the same website, so that it's easier to tell how it's divided between her 1960 memoir, the 1968 news piece, and the 1976 obit? – Reidgreg (talk)
  • Also, are there any secondary sources that we could cite in place of Dworkin's own primary account?
    • Just checking for the memoir part of Gladstone2013:
      • first cite (for "Windau") is not from the memoir part; I could also use Barsky page 9.
      • second cite is not from the memoir but is redundant so I removed it.
      • third cite (first para of health care) does use the memoir. I could add four other citations to cover parts of it but I don't think I can replace it entirely.
      • next is her return to Toronto and house calls. The basics are covered by the non-memoir part but the memoir is used for three hours daily and this being the second Jewish dispensary. I'm not satisfied that other sources cover that very clearly.
      • The next one is there to establish her own motivations for continuing health care advocacy/activism after stopping work at the dispensary. So, primary source.
      • The next one covers her husband's name and marriage year. Part of that is from the memoir. I could add additional sources but Gladstone2013 is the only one with Chanan.
      • Next is the list of associated services with immigration travel, from the obit.
      • Next is for the business name "D. Dworkin & Company", not from the memoir, and only in this source.
      • There's one for her list of philanthropies, from the obit part.
      • The last one I just added for her grandson, Harry Arthurs (since he has a developed article). That's from her obit. I could replace it with OJAplaque.
  • If you're going to be citing different pages of Marrus Barsky 1998, there shouldn't be a specific page number within the reference itself.
    • removed.
  • Any reason Parks Canada is cited as the publisher for one source but the author for the other? This should be standardised one way or the other.
    • One of the sources is via newswire. I put it under |author= for all.
  • Why are we citing a review of Michael Manel's The Jewish Hour instead of the book itself?

Lead

[edit]
  • No infobox?
    • Nope. The lead is only one paragraph and I didn't feel that a bulleted version would be any huge improvement. I can add one, but it'd be the least of my concerns.
  • Link to The Holocaust
    • done

Media

[edit]
  • [copied from below] You should double check the license tags on these photographs, as there appear to be some errors or a lack of information to confirm their PD status. This should be made as clear as possible.
    • I think I've resolved them but there is still a small triangle alert on the aid picture. It doesn't say what the warning is or how to resolve it.

Checklist

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Well-written for the most part, with only minor grammatical issues.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Seems to comply fully with the manual of style, although there's some issues with overly-short sections and chronology.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    All references properly laid out, although a couple minor formatting issues.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Some cases in which citations are bundled at the end of a paragraph, rather than being cited inline with the specific information they are verifying. This makes verification more tricky, in some cases.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Seems to be a few cases where the text doesn't align with the cited sources. Possible original interpretation involved.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    A couple cases of close paraphrasing in the "Philanthropy" section that need clearing up. Earwig doesn't flag any major issues.[1]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Goes over everything I would expect to be covered.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    A couple cases where it goes too far into tangential information, but nothing that can't be easily fixed.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Very neutral, no clear bias one way or the other.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No major changes since GA nomination. No reversions in its article history.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    You should double check the license tags on these photographs, as there appear to be some errors or a lack of information to confirm their PD status. This should be made as clear as possible.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    All images are relevant, most including Dworkin herself, with the other of one of her establishments.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I really enjoyed reading this article and learning about Dworkin, but there are still some issues with it that are preventing it from passing all GA criteria. In particular, there are issues with verification and possible OR that need fixing, as well as some minor cases where it loses focus or too closely paraphrases a source. I think the sections also need to be reorganised and tidied up. Feel free to ping me when you've addressed these comments and I'll be happy to take another look. Thanks for helping write this article, great work so far! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reidgreg: Ok, having now gone over the article again, I am more than happy to pass this review. You've addressed all the issues I found with it and I'm pleased to say this article looks a lot better now. Excellent work on this article and thank you so much for writing it! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Dworkin/GA1&oldid=1230045812"