Talk:Vito Cascio Ferro

	Vito Cascio Ferro has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 12, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 22, 2024.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Sicily Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Italy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Vito Cascioferro/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KimChee (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First impressions

I will review this article. Upon first look, no dead or disambiguation links. I recommend using a template such as {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox criminal}}. The lead paragraph can benefit from a little more expansion. The death year in the first paragraph is different from the death category of the article. You may want to include circa (c.) if the specific date is uncertain. KimChee (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

The issue of the exact date and way he died remains a mystery. The more you look into it the more different dates you get. They are now properly referenced. - DonCalo (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is perfectly acceptable as long as the uncertainty is acknowledged and cited from a source. KimChee (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Three All of the images checked out as being public domain/expired copyright. However, File:Vito Cascioferro2.jpg fails its fair use argument and has been nominated for deletion. If you can find evidence that the image was taken in Italy, then this may be able to take advantage of their shorter copyright term (see Template:PD-Italy). KimChee (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

New info has been added and image has been restored. By the way, I would have appreciated to have been given more time to provide this information but the image was deleted almost immediately. I am sorry, but I cannot afford to be online 24/7 and respond to your questions instantaneously. - DonCalo (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The non-free media use rationale cannot be used for this image as a free one already exists here on Wikipedia. If you want to claim {{PD-Italy}} under Italian copyright statute, you will need to provide some verification that this photo was taken in Italy. I presume the image was taken before 1976, but I also recommend providing a verifiable date, if possible. Offline sources such as I Padrini are acceptable in good faith, but then you should identify the page and quote from the article of book for verification. I recommend using {{cite book}}. I think it is fine for you to take time to respond, but you should expect this scrutiny when submitting the article for review. KimChee (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cascioferro spent his life in Sicily after 1904. The image shows a Cascioferro significantly older than the 1902 mugshot with his son and hunting dog. There is very little if any doubt that the image had been shot somewhere between 1904 and 1926 (the year he was arrested) on Sicily. - DonCalo (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have all the information you need. This needs to be applied to the summary of File:Vito Cascioferro2.jpg if you want to use it in the article. Please see the template used in the summary section of File:Vito Cascioferro.jpg as an example. KimChee (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

The summary needed additional clean up as it still contained data from the other image, but it is otherwise acceptable now. KimChee (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

• "Cascio Ferro" does not need to be boldfaced as it is not referring to Don Vito himself.  Not done

The spelling Cascio Ferro is quite common, in order to avoid endless discussions and changes of the family name I think it is better to keep it in bold. - DonCalo (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a variation in the name of the subject of the article, this should ideally be done in boldface in the first sentence. For example, see Ulysses S. Grant or Tom Cruise. KimChee (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• As I found Cascioferro's name to be written as "Cassio Ferro" from Italian sources, I presume that is how his father spelled the surname. (Not counting wiki-related sources, I found a Google match for the exact phrase "Accursio Cascio Ferro" and none for "Accursio Cascioferro) KimChee (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, avoid curly quotation or apostrophe marks. (see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks) KimChee (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? I don't see any. - DonCalo (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit fixed the quotation marks, but you still have curly apostrophes. For example Cascioferro’s vs. Cascioferro's. You may need to look closely to see this. KimChee (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of in the last copyedit. KimChee (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "Leagues" meant to be plural? If so, it should not be capitalized. KimChee (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

League is the proper translation of Fascio. Just as Fascio is with a capital, League should be so as well as it represents the name of the organisation and not to indicate a general term for the type of organisation. The right translation for Fasci Siciliani is Sicilian Leagues without the Workers (in that case it would be Fasci Siciliani dei Lavoratori). Fasci Siciliani is used because the phenomenon is generally known as such. - DonCalo (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 'special police surveillance' should be in standard quotations.  Done
• What is a "babershop"?  Done
• Usage of slang such as "where he slipped away" is not encyclopedic should be avoided unless it is a direct quotation.  Done
• Pizzo should not be preceded by "the". KimChee (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)  Not done[reply]

I am afraid I have to disagree with you, I think there is nothing wrong with "the pizzo". But maybe we should ask a native speaker for his opinion. - DonCalo (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"pizzo" is not presented as a proper noun as in the case of "the Fasci Siciliani". Therefore, as this is the English Wikipedia, a definite article should be applied when referring to a particular item already in discussion. (e.g. Vito paid him the pizzo that had been previously agreed upon). This does not appear to be the case here as pizzo is mentioned for the first time in that sentence of the article. KimChee (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• Sentences should not begin with "and".  Not done

I agree, but it is a quote and I cannot change a quote. - DonCalo (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. This is fine. KimChee (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Large quotations of passages (longer than a few sentences) should be placed in a block quote.  Done

I changed this to the <blockquote> tag as {{

quote}} is intended for use with the name of the person at the end. KimChee (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• ‘high’ should be in standard quotations. KimChee (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

• "(Joe Petrosino, 1974)" should be within a reference/citation template at the end of the sentence.  Not done

There is a reference to the book, but that is a later version of the publication. In this case it is not meant as a reference but as information. I think you were working in an older version because the reference is there now.

I should have been more clear to say that the reference to the book is unnecessary in the prose as the fact of Cascioferro's demise is followed by a citation to a reference at the bottom of the article that already identifies the author and book. It is unnecessary to pick one particular edition over another as long as verifiability is achieved. KimChee (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

I rephrased the sentence. - DonCalo (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence regarding his death of thirst still needs a citation.  Done
• Avoid slang such as "pinch of salt". KimChee (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)  Not done[reply]

Changed into

grain of salt, which seems to be more common. Both terms are not slang, by the way, but quite common expressions in English and other languages. - DonCalo (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Regardless of commonality, Wikipedia recommends usage of plain English unless the jargon directly pertains to the subject of the article. KimChee (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expression is also used (twice!) in the featured article Tomb of Antipope John XXIII, so I guess it is sufficiently common and not jargon. - DonCalo (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will let this slide under the principle that GA review need not be as rigorous as for FA articles. However, the article you mentioned was reviewed in 2008; I can tell you from personal experience that the review process is more stringent now and will most likely object to the use of colloquialisms not directly related to the topic of the article. I strongly recommend you address this if you have ambitions to take this article to FA review later. KimChee (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any colloquialism attributed to a direct quote is acceptable. KimChee (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You "will let this slide"? I would appreciate a less patronizing tone. The fact that you are reviewing an article does not make you the one who finally decides how it should look or not. Wikipedia is collaborative effort and as far as I know you are not the editor-in-chief. If I, or anyone else for that matter, decide differently that will have the same legitimacy. - DonCalo (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to take that back. Upon re-checking the manual of style, a new section appears to have been added this year regarding

idioms. That phrase will have to be rewritten. KimChee (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

GA review is typically a single-editor process that is open to comments from others. If you disagree with the review, you are welcome to take it to

community reassessment. Please do not take any feedback personally. KimChee (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• In the
  Early life section, Baroness di Valpetrosa is stated to have been kidnapped in 1898, but this source says 1899. KimChee (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

 Done Most sources agree on 1898, I changed the references accordingly. - DonCalo (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the
  Downfall section, Cascioferro is described as having been tried on a murder charge, this source says he was tried for smuggling. Can you clarify the discrepancy? KimChee (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Like his date of death there are sometimes conflicting sources; most sources agree on murder, however. - DonCalo (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, but as an added note: if the discrepancies are between literary or otherwise authoritative sources, you should note this as you have done for the uncertainty regarding the date of death. KimChee (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the
  Death and legacy section, it is stated that "Other sources mention 1942." Can you be more specific? KimChee (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I found a reference to 1942 in the referenced article. - DonCalo (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That short sentence is very vague. Does the source(s) go into any more detail of which prison, manner of death? KimChee (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, was 1942 referring to another possible date of death specifically for Pozzuoli? Is there any further explanation of evidence behind this other theorized date? KimChee (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

*The passage "In his early adulthood he worked as a revenue collector which provided a cover for his protection racket." is copied exactly verbatim from this source, which is a serious problem under

 Not done. I suggest: "He worked as a revenue collector as a young adult, using the position as a cover to carry out his protection racket." KimChee (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply]

*The passage "held power over at least seven major Mafia cosche in and around Palermo, Bisacquino, Campofiorito, Corleone, Contessa Entillina, Chiusa Scalfani, Burgio and Villafranca Sicula." is copied nearly verbatim from this source.

 Done It now reads: "According to some sources, he exercised his power over several Mafia cosche in the the towns of Bisacquino, Campofiorito, Corleone, Contessa Entellina, Chiusa Sclafani, Burgio and Villafranca Sicula, as well as some districts in the city of Palermo" The added benefit is that the wrong spelling of Contessa Entillina and Chiusa Scalfani is now corrected as well. - DonCalo (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Several passages are copied nearly verbatim from this source:

• • "in papers worldwide, and a wave of Italian hatred moved across New York."
  • "concluded that the Mafiosi Carlo Costantino and Antonino Passananti were the likely perpetrators of the crime, with Cascioferro the mastermind."

 Done Both are rephrased. "Papers worldwide" is too broad a claim and is now restricted to the US. "Italian hatred" is rephrased into "anti-Italian sentiment" which is a better description anyway. - DonCalo (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Several passages are also copied nearly verbatim from this source:

• • "at some point during the 1880s"

That is a very regular way of putting things. If that cannot be used many articles have a serious problem. - DonCalo (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways to phrase even the simplest sentences. :) KimChee (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:*"occupying the cell in which Don Vito lived the last years of his life was always considered a great honour." (Also, which cell? The one in Pozzuoli or Palermo?)

 Done Rephrased and prison now mentioned. - DonCalo (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• "Petrosino traced Cascio Ferro to New Orleans, where he slipped away." (from an older revision, but noted for the following) Was already rephrased. - DonCalo (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ongoing pattern of copying text almost word-for-word from the sources raises a serious concern. The article may need to be substantially rewritten if this is also the case with material taken from offline literary sources. KimChee (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am less concerned about the Italian sources, but you should at least check against the English-language ones. KimChee (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been much improved. I further adjusted some of the sentences to distance them from the wording of the sources. Can you pledge that you have also done so for the text with citations to English literary sources? KimChee (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the editing, very useful. I made some minor modifications. I also already edited possible copyright infringements, but need to check some more. That will take some time, since I am very busy at the moment. - DonCalo (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost ready to prepare a summary of the review. The remaining issues include:

WP:TIES). KimChee (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The issue of grain of salt is resolved with a link to wiktionary, if people don't understand the expression they can find the explanation there and actually learn some English. The article has been written in British English and I am not going to change that. The issue of the 1942 death is resolved by putting that section in the same sentence but between brackets (in British usage bracket normally refers to the "round" type, which is called a parenthesis mark in American usage ;-)). The facts about the circumstances of his death in 1942 are basically the same as the ones for 1943, only the year is different. Furthermore, I would like to thank you very much for helping me to improve the article; most of your suggestions were accurate and to the point and your edits also improved the article. - DonCalo (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

1. Is it well written?

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

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

   The variety of English used in the article is a relatively minor issue as long as it is kept consistent. However, please substitute the use of

   words to watch. A suggestion: "[Historians] consider this account a legend rather than fact." KimChee (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)  Done[reply

   ]

2. Is it
   source spot-check
   ?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   Literary / offline sources accepted in good faith.

   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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

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

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good work on improving the article. KimChee (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]