Talk:Berliner Journal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This passes GA review! I'll do the needful now to complete the review. Congrats to and everyone else who worked on the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I very much appreciate your thoroughness as I'm hoping to eventually nominate this one to be an FA.  Tkbrett  (✉) 14:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , no problem, it's a very interesting article! I also read the Berlin-to-Kitchener name change one with fascination. I've learned a little in the past about anti-German sentiment in the US, but knew nothing about similar issues in Canada. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" ! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute !           | Review Comment
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 1. :


 * Prose is very good, just one thing: where the "editors explained that being born and raised in...", explained where? In an editorial? At a public meeting?
 * Lochte says the editors published an article, which sounds like an editorial to me, but I'll use the word article to stick with her phrasing: ...the editors explained that being... -> ...the editors explained in a September 1914 article that being...
 * Excellent, thanks for the fix. Pass on prose.


 * Pass, no issues here.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 2. :


 * No uncited passages, references are densely but clearly laid out. Pass.

A couple questions:
 * The three theses (Coschi, Richardson, and Robinson) - were any of them published or otherwise peer-reviewed? WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that theses should be used with care, especially if we cannot confirm that they were peer-reviewed.
 * WP:SCHOLARSHIP mentions "[i]f possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature": Coschi has been cited in a peer-reviewed paper. Robinson is cited in the endnotes of the book Being German Canadian: History, Memory, Generations (Univ. of Manitoba Press, 2021, p. 52n19), appended to a sentence reading: "Many other studies have yet to be published, including several excellent dissertations and master's theses". WP:SCHOLARSHIP also mentions "Masters dissertations... are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". In the case of Richardson, I believe this is the case. Historian Gregory Hayes refers to her thesis in the endnotes to his book Waterloo County: An Illustrated History (Waterloo Historical Society, 1997, p. 261n24), as do historians Agata Monkiewicz and James M. Skidmore in their Berliner Journal chapter for Germany and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History (ABC-CLIO, 2005, p. 138). Richardson also wrote John Motz's entry for the Dictionary of Canadian Biography (University of Toronto/Université Laval, 1998), citing her thesis in the process.
 * Thank you for your detailed answer - all three sources should be good, then.
 * I'm not sure that cite #126 is necessary (see original research note below).
 * I've gone ahead and removed it.
 * Are there ISBNs or other identifiers for the Lloyd George and Boeschenstein books?
 * I fleshed out the Boeschenstein reference. Lloyd George was published before the existence of ISBNs, so I've added an OCLC instead.
 * Pass on sourcing.


 * Note 1 seems to be skirting the line for original research. The Lochte source is fine, but I don't think we need the "absence of evidence is evidence" bits.
 * I've removed the Kitchener Public Library reference. I believe ref 125 is important because it indicates the various contradictions among sources; most of them say the paper stopped publishing in October 1918, while others provide evidence that it still existed in December 1918. I've tried to avoid OR by not making any definite conclusions, but by simply laying out what all of the sources say.
 * Fair enough - thanks for making the modification! Checking the rest of the article for OR.
 * Pass, no further issues.


 * Copyvio finds nothing of concern, hold for manual spot-check.
 * Spot check (not 100% comprehensive) found nothing of concern. Pass.


 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 3. :


 * Pass, no other major areas turned up via searching / checking sources.


 * Pass. I was a little concerned since it's a long article on a historically small newspaper, but the article's quality means it avoids trivial detail.


 * Pass, no issues found.


 * Ongoing changes and editing by Tkbrett, but no edit warring - largely stable. Would be good to hold off on further expansion during the review except in response to review questions/issues.
 * I made some changes I wanted to get to before your review started, so that it should be it. I'll hold off from here. Thanks.  Tkbrett  (✉) 14:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 6. :


 * Pass, no issues here.


 * Pass, no issues here. I will possibly find some spots to add images as I do prose review, but shouldn't be a big deal.