Talk:Joseph Déjacque/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 21:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Didn't want to let the backlog drive end without clearing out WP:@'s tiny portion of it. I'll get to this in a bit - certainly by this weekend. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this on! I look forward to seeing your comments and suggestions. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to step away from this for a bit, but I've put up image queries for now. -- asilvering (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm calling it a wrap on the source check, since the ones I looked at cover nearly all the footnotes in the article. Only added a couple more questions below. I'll leave this open for now to give you a chance to respond to them if you like. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Prose

 * 1) Anything too minor to bug you with, I've done myself, but as always feel free to revert/dispute any of those changes. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) During this time, Déjacque taught himself how to write what he called "social poetry". Did he use this phrase specifically? Our article on social poetry suggests it's a much later phenomenon. Might be worth a quick mention in that article. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The subtitle for Les Lazereenes was "Poesies sociales", so aye. The social poetry article is very short and I'm not sure how I'd integrate something about Déjacque into it to be honest. Perhaps I should remove the link if it's misleading? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah, I don't think you should remove the link. It's fine here. Was just hoping to push a fix out into the other article while we're at it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Despite the revolutionary changes, unemployment and poverty was still rife, forcing the conservative government to make concessions to Louis Blanc's socialist faction. Could you expand this by a sentence or two for some additional context? I think a reader unfamiliar with 1848 is going to be a bit lost in here. I'm thinking of questions like: What revolutionary changes? Is the conservative government the 2nd Republic? Is the first paragraph in this section summarizing the next two, or did these events happen first? What is the relationship of the June Days to the revolution? etc. It's probably worth adding a few context-suggesting words in this section in general - "the short-lived Second French Republic", "the French Revolution of 1848, which deposed..." and so on. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to rewrite this in order to clarify some things, based on your suggestions (diff). Let me know if there's anything more I can do. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is much clearer, I think. -- asilvering (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) where over 15,000 workers were deported unclear whether the workers were deported to Cherbourg or from Cherbourg (and where to, if the latter). Might be worth a mention of why he was merely imprisoned, while thousands of others were deported. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know where they were deported to or why Déjacque was only imprisoned. Per the source: "In the process, [the military] killed about 3,000 working class Parisians, while wounding and arresting uncounted thousands, including Déjacque, who found himself imprisoned at Cherbourg. To ensure the further silence of the workers in French politics, the government ordered 15,000 deported." --Grnrchst (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Aha, but we do at least find from this that Cherbourg is unrelated to the deported workers. I'll alter the sentence a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Les Lazaréenes this should be glossed. (And, can we say anything further about it than 'it was anti-authoritarian and he was arrested for it'? Seems odd that he's described in the lead as a poet but there isn't any reference here to literary work about him.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Glossed? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Per your suggestion, I've expanded on his poetic work here (diff). --Grnrchst (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry! By "glossed" I mean as in gloss - to give the meaning in English, or to explain the title in some way. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No bother! I have given an English translation, but not sure if that's clarified anything. I think that "Lazarenes" is a reference to Lazarus of Bethany, but I'm not sure enough on that to provide a further explanation without a source to back that up. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, drat, I was assuming one of the sources would have explained the title. Perhaps because I'm a medievalist, I'd assume it was also intended to refer to the other Lazarus. Surprising no one explains it - I guess this means there's an open PhD dissertation for someone on the fiction of Joseph Déjacque! -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) the "reactionary period" of the Second French Empire the wikilink here just goes to reactionary - can you provide any additional context for the "reactionary period of the Second Empire"? Even just a date range would be fine. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarified date range. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) with their mutual aid societies sitting on much of the money that they collected anything in the sources about what purpose it was being withheld for, or why it wasn't being distributed? -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really. Here's the full quote from the source: The generosity of the working people back in France, meant that collections supplied some relief funds. These sufficed to allow a meager four shillings daily to unemployed exiles, but the émigré politicians disputed control of those funds as well and mutual aid societies also hoarded the funds under their direction. Usurping this this power, the “high and mighty lords of democracy... died without forgetting or learning anything.” --Grnrchst (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bummer. -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) began penning an essay on The Revolutionary Question is this a work by Barbès, or? -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No it's by Déjacque. I've rearranged the sentence in an attempt to better clarify the authorship. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Aha. I'll stick a comma in to make it clearer. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Having earned fame for his romantic poetry ok, now I definitely want to know more about his poetry! -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the extra info I've added on Les Lazareenes is enough, as it's what earned him this fame among French emigres. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious, but I'll hold it for source check. -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) French socialists of the Revolutionary Commune can we get a wikilink in here? If I saw this outside of this context, I'd assume it meant the Paris Commune. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've redlinked it, as I can't find an article about it either on here or on the French Wikipedia. For context, the Revolutionary Commune was a French revolutionary socialist organisation established in London in 1852 by Félix Pyat. Lehning 1938 goes into detail about it. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll just add in the context you've given here. Feel free to poke it if you think it's clunky. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) By the time Déjacque returned to New York in 1858 you haven't mentioned him leaving NY before this. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed this detail for now. Alternatively, I can move it to the section about his return. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) its followers largely upheld socialism whilst ignoring the pressing issue of slavery Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how anyone could "uphold" socialism while ignoring slavery. Is there a better way to phrase this? -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From the cited source: "Certainly, French radical ideas had a significant following in New Orleans among both the émigrés and the indigenous American social reformers. Among the latter, Thomas J. Durant, John C. Wilkins, T. Wharton Collens, and others offered a peculiarly regional blueprint for socialism that avoided direct action to abolish slavery." Perhaps I could word it better, that's just what I came up with. Thoughts? --Grnrchst (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I gave it a shot. "Peculiarly regional" sure is some champion academic side-eye. -- asilvering (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) In 1856, he gave a public address is it possible to add any more context here? eg, where and why he made the address? From the article alone I don't know whether this was something broadly seen as important or whether it was a soapbox rant on a street corner. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I clarified that this was at a bar in Royal Street. I had assumed when I read the source that no article would exist on the street, so it wouldn't be worth mentioning, but as it's about a road in an American city, of course one exists. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In defence of the wikigazeteers, it does appear that this is quite a famous street. -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) This time, he was not able to find a publisher for his abolitionist remarks. this implies there was a time when he did find a publisher, so you might as well mention it here. "Unlike in specificexample, he was not...", "He was not able... at this time, but in such-and-such-year he..." or something? -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was comparing it to when he managed to find a publisher for The Revolutionary Question, but that was my own personal interpretation, so I just removed "This time,". --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) By this time, the term also gained popularity among proponents of laissez-faire and free market economics, such as Robert Nozick, David Friedman and Murray Rothbard. I think there's a sentence missing after this one that expresses "this kind of thinking, antithetical to Dejacque's definition of libertarianism, is the definition most widely understood in the USA today". It's taken as a bit of a given, but I'm not sure we can assume it's a given for Wikipedia's general readership, most of whom presumably aren't American anglophones. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a detail about the use of the term "libertarianism" in English-speaking countries, per Long. Not mentioned it being "antithetical" to Dejacque because that's not explicitly outlined in any of the cited sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hah, yes, fair enough, we do have to spare wikipedia readers my editorializations. -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hartman and Lause 2012

 * 1) I think Like many youthful rebels against the apparent tedium of craft labor, Déjacque went to sea. is more a figure of speech than a statement that he found manual labour boring. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Should I remove that detail then? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) They write that "The best comprehensive survey of Dejacque's life" is Perrot 1994, but I don't see it anywhere in this bibliography or in further reading. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added to further reading, thanks for catching this. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Together with Anselme Bellegarrigue and Ernest Cœurderoy, is there some reason Claude Pelletier is missing here? -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly that I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on him. Probably not a good enough reason, so I've added an interlanguage link to French Wiki (although honestly, that article could do with some work too). --Grnrchst (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) By the time of the 1851 French coup d'état,[25] Déjacque had fled into exile,[26] making his way to Brussels and then on to London. do we really need three separate stacks of citations here? Seems excessive, and it is all covered in H&L. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cut one. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) advocating for small revolutionary cells to carry out direct action against traditional institutions I'm not seeing this on pg 28. -- asilvering (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I misread the bit where it says: Such a revolutionary process included conspiratorial actions by a small number of romantic revolutionaries in the name of the many." I realise now this is talking about bourgeois revolution. Cut the citation, so this is now only cited to Woodcock. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) He also attempted to publish a work of utopian fiction, but was not able to secure the required number of subscriptions. Now that I have H&L to compare, I realize this utopian work is L'humanisphère. I think you ought to name it here, to make that clear. -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) This bit on 1968 on pp 37-39 is important context, imo. It would be good to add in a sentence about that following By the turn of the 20th century, -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a nod to 1968, but honestly I don't know what else I can add, looking at it the now. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine like this, I think. Even just getting the wikilink in there helps imo. -- asilvering (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) reportedly having succumbed to mental illness H&L quote him: "Déjacque is dead, mad from misery, in Paris, 1864". Since you've got an "According to..." in here anyway, I think it's better to use his words directly as a quote than to frame it as "succumbed to mental illness". Partly because it's a great quote, but also because I wouldn't trust anyone but a medical historian with expertise on the 19th century on this one. -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure I want to change this one. Partly because I think "mad from misery" might be a mistranslation of "misère", which I think is closer translated to "poverty" even if cognate with "misery". I also wanted to attempt a neutralisation of the terminology, as all the sources use the term "mad", which I don't think is appropriate for wikivoice. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think having it in a quote is a good way to get around wikivoice problems, but I see what you mean about the translation. Perhaps we can reword it to something like "died in misery and poverty" or "died in miserable poverty"? I don't think either of these stretch the source too much. -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I'm still not convinced on this change. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, let's leave it. -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The same year that Déjacque died Hang on, right before this you've said the date of his death is in dispute! --  asilvering (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right, I've rewritten slightly. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) established by a coalition of British Owenites and French mutualists source says they're Chartists, not Owenites? -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The term "Owenite" came from the Britannica source. It's not really wrong, Chartists and Owenites had a substantial amount of overlap, but I've changed to Chartist for now. I also notice that Hartman & Lause don't explicitly mention mutualists (they actually mentioned the Philadelphes), where the Britannica source does, so I've split the citation. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Others

 * 1) art historian Robyn Roslack highlighting the following passage But this sentence is citing Antliff? Can we cite the original? -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the source I have available to me, I don't know where I can access Roslack's book. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you give me the full citation, I'll see what I can do. -- asilvering (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Upon returning to New York I'm not sure why this has a citation at all, let alone this many. -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) In June 1858, he established the newspaper Le Libertaire, journal d'un mouvement social. This too isn't contentious and doesn't need more than one source. Cut it to the most accessible and/or the most in-depth? -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cut in half. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) According to Gustave Lefrançais,[87] Déjacque died in 1864,[88] reportedly having succumbed to mental illness.[89] This whole sentence only needs a single footnote, containing only one source: Lefrancais, Souvenirs d’un revolutionnaire. (Unfortunately H&L don't give a page number or further information - maybe one of the other sources do? Alternatively, you could cite them, for their translation, if you use my suggestion about quoting it above. But again - just the one!) -- asilvering (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Woodcock also mentions a Les Pyrénées Nivelées, which isn't mentioned in this article anywhere. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't include mention of this because I couldn't find any information about it anywhere else. It's not in WorldCat, it's not on Wikisource, I've tried DuckDuckGo'ing it but with no results, Google Scholar only turns up mentions in Woodcock's book. I'd rather not include something that I'm not even confident about the existence of. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is very strange. I tried gallica, also nothing. Too bad Woodcock is dead and we can't just ask him where he got that. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) he and Cœurderoy joined The Mountain's uprising there's two sfns on this sentence but I don't think you need the first one? The ones that support this phrase I'm quoting are enough. It's not contentious. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cut. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) I was hoping Woodcock would have footnotes about the various accounts of Déjacque's death, but he doesn't. So I really don't see any need for us to repeat these varied accounts, since no WP:RS appears to use them at all. I think you ought to just rewrite this paragraph to remove the mentions of various accounts etc, since the reliable sources we do have all appear to agree on 1864. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought it was worth including because Hartman & Lause also mention the differing accounts of his death. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they don't cite the source either, so I don't really see any reason for us to perpetuate it. Maybe it was in dispute once, but there doesn't seem to be any controversy about it any longer. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Images

 * 1) I went looking for an image of Déjacque, just in case, and alas found only that Madach photo mentioned already on the talk page. But also this article about it, if you're interested. -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Aye I'm 90% sure there aren't any photographs of Déjacque. There may be some drawings out there, but I haven't managed to find any. :/ --Grnrchst (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) (Not required for GA! But if you can...) File:Gustave Lefrançais.jpg is marked as 1871, so I have no reason to believe it's subject to copyright. But is there any chance we can track down the actual source? -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the IISH, I have found information about its authorship. As it was taken in 1871 and its author died in 1906, it is pretty unambiguously in the public domain, even by the standards of Mickey Mouse law. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) The source info for File:Karl Marx, May 1861.jpg actually suggests this is in copyright, since it's from a 1973 book. My library has a copy of the book, so I'll double-check it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with losing this one, it's probably the most tangentially related of the images. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, wouldn't this photo be in the public domain anyway? The photo might have been sourced from a 1973 book, but it was taken in 1861 and the photographer died in 1885. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're quite right! If the book had been published before the 70-year clock was up, it would present copyright problems, but since it's from a 1973 book, that should be fine. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) File:Luigi Gallean2.jpg is used all over en-wiki, but we don't appear to have any idea where it comes from. Any idea? -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We know it was a mugshot, either taken in 1906-07 after his arrest in Barre or during his arrest and deportation proceedings in 1917-1919. Senta 2019 shows it in a document date to 8.7.1919. The photo is held by the Barre Historical Society and the Library of Congress. I'm almost certain it must have been published before 1929, will have to look further though. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever you can find would be helpful to add to the image info on commons. I think it must count as PD in the USA in any case, since it's a mugshot (and thus taken by a government employee). Though, now that I say that, I realize that only counts for federal-level employees and I have no idea if it's a similar rule state- or county-wide. -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) File:Benjamin Tucker.jpg was this photo really published before 1929? If it was, we're in luck, but if it wasn't, I don't think we can assume we're 70 years past the death of the photographer (this would put their death at 1954 or earlier, and it's realistic to believe that someone who was a professional photographer in 1910 could have lived past 1954). Extremely annoying that UMich gives us this statement about how we're on our own for determining copyright. -- asilvering (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Found evidence of its publication in the first edition of Instead of a Book (1893). Would need to do more research to find out the photographer's identity. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No need, if it was published in 1893, we're good to go. -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)