Talk:Martin F. Tanahey/GA1

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

Reviewer: SecretName101 (talk · contribs) 08:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I will begin this review. This is my first time conducting a good article review, so please bare with me. SecretName101 (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2022 (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):
 * The prose is choppy in some areas, and therefore doesn't rise to the high-quality needed for a "good article". For example, in the "Early life and career" section, the second paragraph jumps into discussion of what Tammany Hall is without first providing us with any context of its relation to the subject of the article. This makes any reader who has skipped the lead and gone straight to the body of the article (as some readers are prone to doing) confused about the purpose of that paragraph, as Tammy Hall would appear to be a non-sequitur without needed context. There are also moments like "At the 1928 presidential election, New York's 1st congressional district was split between Lower Manhattan and Staten Island." This is a bizarre sentence which seems to be missing a few words (perhaps it should be "at the time of the 1928...).
 * For context, I was trying to bring this to Featured status under 10k bytes, hence some of the choppiness. Tanahey, as a relatively obscure fellow, seemed like a good candidate for that but might not be upon further consideration. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will re-review the prose and grammar and see if that has been remedied yet. SecretName101 (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @John M Wolfson
 * I would still recommend changes to the prose. In the "early life and career" I would first mention the connection between Tahaney and Tom Foley, then Foley's connection to Tammany Hall, before describing Tammany Hall. It currently is all done in the exact reverse order.
 * Also, since Tom is generally understood to be a common nickname for Thomas, there is no need to stylize is as Thomas "Tom" Foley. Either Tom Foley and Thomas Foley should suffice, whichever his common name was.
 * For instance, a rewrite might look like, "Tahaney became and attaché of the political boss Tom Foley. Foley led the Tammany Hall political machine (which catered to the city's working class, especially its Irish immigrants) and is known for his work in aiding the early political career of Al Smith. Tahaney became popular among the gamblers of the Lower East Side, with some gamblers organizing events as the "Martin F. Tanahey Association" circa 1900."


 * I think that the "organizing picnics for lower- and working-class families" is too biographical of Foley and does not illustrate anything relevant to Tahaney, so that can be cut.
 * I'd encourage a rewrite like that, and will see if any other prose needs tightening. SecretName101 (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Passing now on prose. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The "original research" is an easy fix. The one issue is with the claim in the lead "well liked". I don't see sufficient evidence provided in the body of the article that he was popular at-large. Earwig detects no copyright problems
 * I believe the formation of a "Martin F. Tanahey Association" is enough proof to show him as "popular", which I've changed the lead to. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @John M Wolfson It is not. Even largely-unpopular figures can have dedicated fandoms. But I did find for you an obituary that called him a "picturesque and popular figure". Incorporate that source and information somehow into the body of the article, and the lead's language should be fine and pass this criteria. SecretName101 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, this other source similarly calls him "a picturesque figure in downtown politics". The language appears to be hinting that he was an unusual or vivid figure, but not sure if that is what the definition meant. SecretName101 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those exact words are also in the NYT obituary already cited (albeit offline/paywalled/only available to those who asked the Wikipedia source access like I did), which (extreme danger to democracy notwithstanding) I believe justifies the verbage in the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @John M Wolfson That language in the lead was not followed by an attached citation, nor was similar language used in the body of the article itself. Thus, it was unclear to me or any reader that you were citing anything specific when making that claim in the lead. Remedy that and I believe it should pass the NOR criteria. SecretName101 (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The OR concern I had appears to have been remedied with changes to the body. So I will now change that criteria to satisfied. SecretName101 (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

SecretName101 (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is not sufficiently broad in its coverage at the moment. The article covers the basics about Tanahey, and also goes into some very good detail about certain aspects of his life. It very well details his aspects of his role in Tammany politics and electoral campaigning. However, only one action he took within the city council (a vote on an ordinance) is mentioned. There certainly are more pieces of mention-worthy work this man did on the city council. The focus also needs some attention (no pun intended). The article also mentions Tanahey breaking ground on a playground in 1925. Politicians attend countless ribbon-cuttings and ground-breaking in their career. Context would need to be provided of the importance of that particular playground if it is important, otherwise details like that are not worthy of mention. As mentioned earlier, some information (such as the paragraph describing Tammany Hall) is presented without first providing introductory context of how it relates to the subject of the article. I believe that there might be too much work needed on this criteria for the time allotted by a hold. The nominator has, in the past, done some phenomenal work in the in authoring articles that excel in this criteria. I have confidence that they will eventually be able to meet this criteria, but I lack confidence that it can be done all that quickly.
 * If this is WP:PROSELINEy, it's probably because Tanahey didn't do a whole lot with his career compared to Hamill, for one. Given the NYT articles I've been afforded access to, the only things I've seen him do as an alderman have been the curfew ordinance and something about police widows' pensions. Perhaps I should swap out the playground prose for the widow pension for both conciseness and relevance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi JMW and SN101. I do think the article would be stronger with more discussion of the widow pension, which was a multi-year project for Tanahey. The only other alderman work I remember seeing coverage of was the night club curfew ordinance mentioned already. One line on the playground doesn't seem like too much to me, but I wouldn't oppose keeping it to just the image and caption. SN101, my experience with the broadness criteria is that it doesn't demand water from a stone. Having some familiarity with the NYT archives on Tanahey and having skimmed the Newspapers.com coverage, I think improvement on the above items is all that's reasonable given the paltry sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Have passed on this merit now that widow pension info was added. SecretName101 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * There were no images when I began this review. I did a quick search for possible public domain images, and only found one in my cursory search (which I have added as a curtesy). The subject of the article seems to be a figure is be difficult to find images on. It is possible that one might be able to find more images by digging through digitized newspaper archives. However, that goes beyond "readily available" (not all users have access to subscription news archives such as newspapers.com, and it could require great effort to find an image). Since I saw no more readily-available images, and added the only one I could find as a curtesy, I believe this passes.
 * How is the image, published in 1925, fall under public domain? Has enough time passed so the treshold has been reached for copyright expiration, and I'm just getting old? That makes sense, since the last time I checked the year was 1923 or thereabouts. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A@John M Wolfson Works published in the USA before 1926 are now without copyright. Increases every year as we both get older. As of midnight Eastern Time (less than 6 hours from now), works from 1927 will enter the public domain too. SecretName101 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * I am putting the review on hold. The main issue is that the article does not have broad enough coverage. I am uncertain that an approximately seven-day hold would be sufficient time to meet that criteria. However, I am giving the nominator the chance to try. If they believe that they need more time than that, I would be willing to fail the article with a promise that I will be willing to assess it a second time if it is re-nominated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * I am putting the review on hold. The main issue is that the article does not have broad enough coverage. I am uncertain that an approximately seven-day hold would be sufficient time to meet that criteria. However, I am giving the nominator the chance to try. If they believe that they need more time than that, I would be willing to fail the article with a promise that I will be willing to assess it a second time if it is re-nominated.


 * @John M Wolfson You appear to have access to The New York Times digital archive, am I correct in this assumption? One thing you can do to make this article more complete is to add an "electoral history" section. I have found articles for the 1921 and 1925 aldermanic election results. You'd need to find the 1929 results (should be easy).
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1921/11/10/archives/the-city-vote-hylans-plurality-417986craigs-249252bantons-83680.html?searchResultPosition=41
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1925/11/04/archives/mayoralty-sweep-tammany-controls-board-of-estimate-and-aldermen.html?searchResultPosition=5
 * Another change I'd encourage is to alter the wording "they were in New York County's 2nd Assembly district". I at one point misunderstood this as meaning he was the state assembly member for that district. Find a way to make it clear that you were referring to this being the district in which he worked patronage.
 * Best of luck. SecretName101 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not have such access ( gave me access to the Times Machine. Other newspapers probably have such data, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @John M Wolfson
 * What I found
 * 1921 sources
 * https://www.nytimes.com/1921/11/10/archives/the-city-vote-hylans-plurality-417986craigs-249252bantons-83680.html?searchResultPosition=41 (for party affiliation; the vote tally here differs from the other source's certified numbers however)
 * and
 * http://cityrecord.engineering.nyu.edu/data/1921/1921-12-21.pdf (for certified results. This source does not provide party affiliation however. Also, unlike the NYT, provides the full names of candidates. The NYT only provides the surname.)
 * 1921 Results
 * Edward J. Dwyer Jr. (Republican): 2,225
 * Martin F. Tanahey (Democrat): 11,989
 * Morris Goldofsky (Socialist): 1,915
 * Julius Singer: 24
 * William Mulholland: 1
 * There were 17,129 ballots cast. However, 765 were blank, 180 were void, and 30 were protested.
 * Singer and Mulholland appear to have been write-in candidates, since they are not listed in the NYT.
 * 1925 sources: https://www.nytimes.com/1925/11/04/archives/mayoralty-sweep-tammany-controls-board-of-estimate-and-aldermen.html?searchResultPosition=5 (for full names of candidates. Alamanac source only lists surnames)
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Brooklyn_Daily_Eagle_Almanac/ybsZAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA436&printsec=frontcover (for certified results. Party affiliations are listed in both this and the NYT. The results listed in the NYT differ from these certified results.)
 * 1925 results:
 * Martin F. Tanahy (Democrat): 13,083
 * Michael Vallinoti (Republican): 1,998
 * Isadore Corn (Socialist): 352
 * There is the article 1929 New York City aldermanic election that lists Tanahey’s 1929 result with a citation.
 * SecretName101 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You likely know of the 1929 article, having been its original and predominant contributor. SecretName101 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This really passed my mind, especially as it is unlikely to get under 10k. That said, are the election history and widow pensions the only thing keeping this from promotion? Because if so, I can get those done within a week. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @John M Wolfson I believe that those were the two things I knew of that were missing from making this comprehensive enough. SecretName101 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I should be done here. your help with the remaining NYT issues and volumes is, as always, appreciated though not required. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be able to get to those pretty soon! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Volumes and numbers added. I fixed one date and mad some minor formatting changes. See this cumulative diff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @John M Wolfson Are you planning to implement some of the prose changes that I suggested? I see some of the concerning prose seems untouched. SecretName101 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have touched various paragraphs, hopefully that spruces this up a bit. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Pass/Fail:
 * Now passing. SecretName101 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)