Talk:Kelly pool/GA1

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

Right then, second time 'round and looking lots better. Dammit, I feel the usual malaise of winter and it is cold as **** here, notes to follow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude, a great job, and I really think you should get it in print somewhere other than here as well. It really has been a great job in hunting down obscure material and really shows how great WP can be. Right now I am agonising over one tiny thing, ok - I am happy that the core material presented is not original research as such (big sigh of relief). I was wondering why the need to mention these two sentences:

As part of the same household, Mulvaney's brother's listing appears on the same census page, with his occupation and job position identically recorded.[5] The Census further lists Mulvaney's age in 1910 as 56, his birthdate as "about 1854", his birthplace as Wisconsin, his spouse's name as Kate, and his area of residence at that time as Chicago Ward 14, Cook Co., Illinois.

Given the last sentence of para 1, then this bit is redundant (???) - again this is great material for an article, but is it veering to OR here? Once we just sort out this tiny bit it can get a GA stamp no worries. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - do you feel that the above segment is necessary here? if we can remove it I am happy to pass right here and now, if you feel it is essential, I'd just want to ask someone about how close they feel it is to OR (and if they think it's fine I am happy too). Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this is essential material and I have no real problem with its removal though I would prefer to keep it in, given that I feel in the whole section I am illuminating something that, though it comes straight out of reliable sources, has been lost to modern scholarship (and it may be that it has never before been gathered in one place), so I wanted to provide maximum detail. It does go into some minutia and I can definitely tone it down a bit for better readability. I think mentioning his wife's name and his brother-in-law's identical occupation is good detail.

I'm not sure what you mean about OR though. If you look at the census (pictured on the page; go to maximum view in the file to follow) it comes directly out of there. Specifically, if you look at the third entry field at the top of the census form it instructs: "relationship of this person to the head of the family". Each head of family below starts a new entry; each person below the person listed as "head" [of household] has their relationship to that person stated. Here, Calistus is listed as "head", and then below that they have listed his wife, sister, brother-in-law and servant, stating those relationships in text, and then it moves on to a new family by the next "head" listing. With that clarification, do you still think there's something original-research-y about it?

Thank you for the kind words about the research. I looked at quite a few hundred newspaper articles before I found this detail and was quite excited by the find. Regarding getting this printed somewhere, I'm just not sure how to go about it. Is it possible it can be the makings of a story in the The Signpost? If so, I would not feel right seeking that myself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, I am pondering this out loud. It is not drawing any conclusions as such, is it. I guess it is just the level of detail and it is actually primary sources (but note that the guidelines on preference for secondary sources are just that (i.e. guidelines not rules and hence open to interpretation and a good dose of pragmatism). Stuff it, I think we're over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs)

The only thing left to do that I can think of is to ungenerify the citations. That will certainly be a problem if this goes to FAC. In early 2007 having citations at the end of paragraphs was far more okay than it is now. I wish I had done it then. Now I have to look at all the sources and reconstruct which tidbits come from each.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be very prudent - see also User_talk:Dweller#Intriguing_article_at_Kelly_pool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]