---

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

Result: There seems to be consensus that this is not GA standard, although there is not total agreement on why that is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

After 17 years of being listed as a good article, I think it's more than time for a reassessment. The article hasn't received many changes in over a decade and its main contributor has been almost completely inactive since 2013. A pass of this article has revealed to me some issues that I think need to be addressed in order to keep it at GA. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is clear and concise, grammar and spelling seems to all be good.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   It complies quite closely to the manual of style, for the most part. But somewhere it stands out is its use of quotations, with one displayed at the very beginning of his biography and some rather large blockquotes in the philosophy section, as well as some unattributed smaller quotes scattered around the rest of the article.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference are mostly properly formatted, with only one exception of no formatting (Lum 1888) and a couple cases of duplicate information (i.e. Reviews in American History).

   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):

   Every bit of information in the article has an inline citation, which is all good. However, I'm uncertain as to the reliability of many of the sources. Just under one-third of the citations are to primary sources with a direct connection to the subject (Tucker 1893; de Cleyre 2007; Lum 1888; Parsons 2002; Yarros 1890). There's also a few citations to self-published blog posts (Crass 2003; Carson 2005; McElroy 2007). The rest come from clearly reliable, secondary sources from academic publishers or journals. But this does mean that about half of the citations are coming from sources I would consider questionable at GA level.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research that I can see, everything seems to come from the cited sources and the spot checks I've done verify the information I see it cited to.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig flags some cases where it edges close to repeating Kevin Carson's words without attribution,[1] but this can easily be reworded.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This is another place I think this article falls flat. There are quite noticeable gaps in the timeline, with zero information in the prose about Lum's birth and early life. It also completely glosses over quite important pieces of his biography that I feel could be served well by fleshing out.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The "philosophy" section strikes me as rather unfocused. The first couple sentences are more about claiming him as part of various different ideologies, without really explaining what his philosophy actually is. It also just repeats the same information as what's already in the biography, to strange effect. This section really needs a go over to tighten it up.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No clearly identifiable problems with neutrality.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   It's only received a handful of minor edits over the past few years. No reversions since before its first GAN review in 2007.

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:

   Photograph seems to be tagged with the wrong PD license, based on incomplete information. But this photograph is almost certainly in the public domain.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Only photograph is of the subject himself, although it could use a caption and alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, I think this article has some glaring problems that would hold me back from passing it today, although I'm sure standards may have been different back in 2007. Based on sections 2 and 3 of our good article criteria, I do not think this article meets the mark in its current state. It could certainly do with a rewrite, trimming the questionable sources and using other more clearly reliable sources to improve it. If other editors are interested in helping improve the article, I think it could get to meeting the good article criteria, but it would basically require a complete bottom-up redo. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am skeptical of the comments above. I'm not saying that this qualifies as a GA, but...

  "zero information in the prose about Lum's birth and early life" - Do you have reason to think that this is notable? Is it covered in the sources or known at all?

  "It also completely glosses over quite important pieces of his biography" - Now this is a real problem, but you can't just say this and casually move on. What important pieces of his biography does it gloss over? What's missing?

  "(Tucker 1893; de Cleyre 2007; Lum 1888; Parsons 2002; Yarros 1890)" - Parsons 2002 is used to cite a quote from Lum, so citing Lum directly is perfectly accurate. Yarros 1890 is used to support a basic claim that Yarros criticized Lum. Lum 1888 is used a single time for a basic WP:ABOUTSELF for which political philosophy he described himself by; people can generally be trusted to describe their own personal beliefs. de Cleyre 2007 is used for another basic, uncontroversial claim that Lum edited an anarchist magazine - highly doubtful de Cleyre would inexplicably lie about that. Now, Tucker 1893 has something of a point - it's a contemporary source which is not great. However, it's mostly used for quotes and things like birth / death dates currently, with the prose even attributing it inline as "the anarchist press said..." in one part. That said, I agree that "ran for lieutenant governor of Massachusetts on the Labor Reform ticket of abolitionist Wendell Phillips in 1870" should be attributed to a stronger source ideally than Tucker.

  "Only photograph is of the subject himself, although it could use a caption and alt text." - It's just a picture of Lum. The documentation specifically says to only include a caption when needed, and if the caption were just to say "Dyer Lum", it's not. I guess the date the photograph was taken might be mildly useful info but it's not listed in the image description.

  "without really explaining what his philosophy actually is" - He isn't Wittgenstein. It's not like even elected politicians have perfectly consistent philosophies, and as someone on the outskirts of political life as an anarchist, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to decline to create some overarching philosophy. Sometimes all we have to go on are scattered statements and articles.

• Per above, I'm not necessarily endorsing the article, but I suspect that the above suggestions would be counterproductive if anything. To get this closer to being a modern GA, then trimming some weakly sourced info is probably preferred to expanding the article with material that might not even exist or be relevant. But to know for sure I'd want to read that "Biographical Dictionary of the American Left" article, but it looks like it's not available for borrow at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are all fair and valid criticisms of my comments. But I would like to push back against the suggestions that more sources on him don't exist, that there isn't more to write about him and even that he isn't worth writing about in any depth. In particular, Frank Brooks has done a lot of research into Lum,[2][3] but his work is relegated to "further reading". Even within this article there are sources that go further in depth, but aren't cited much at all (see Avrich 1986; Schuster 1999 and McElroy 2003). -- Grnrchst (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for elaborating. I don't think that citing unpublished PhD dissertations should be required or expected even at the FA level (although it's cool if it's done and it's a relevant source), so Brooks 1988 is probably optional, but I do agree that Brooks 1993 and Carson 2018 (which did not exist at the time of GA nomination!) look like good sources to include if anyone wants to take a stab at updating the article. SnowFire (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Agreed on the broad strokes of what's needed to meet the GA criteria: replacing unreliable/primary sources, replacing quotes with paraphrase, and expanding from the named sources (but not the dissertation). Covering that breadth of sources helps justify the brevity of the article if there is indeed no major biographical detail to add. czar 20:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]