Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary van Kleeck/archive1

Mary van Kleeck

 * Nominator(s): Ganesha811 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Mary van Kleeck, an American social scientist and feminist of the 20th century. It is currently a Good Article (since November), and as a first time FA-nominator, I sought the mentorship of before nominating the article. Van Kleeck was a fascinating figure but there is not a great deal of scholarship on her, so the article is comprehensive but still relatively short. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from 100cellsman

There are no length requirements for Featured Articles, so I wouldn't worry about it being short.🧍‍♂️⭕⭕ (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. As noted above, I've agreed to mentor Ganesha811 in this nomination and I wish to add my support for the article after she made the few changes I suggested before nominating it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Mary_van_Kleeck_LOC_hec.10458.jpg: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Same with File:VAN_GLECK,_MARY_LOC_hec.10457.jpg
 * These images are from the Harris & Ewing Collection given to the Library of Congress. Harris & Ewing was a US photo studio from 1905 to 1977, when it closed. I'm not the original uploader for either image, but the library (and hence Wikimedia) claim there are no restrictions on these images and that publication is permitted (see here). The LoC also claims both images were published between 1913 and 1918. Subjectively, her age appears to be consistent with those dates. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The LOC claim is that the images were "created/published" in that range, which is different from definitely stating they were published in that range. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not sure there is any way to state more definitively that they were published in that range without heading to Washington and doing original research at the LoC. Given that, what do you advise? Should the images be removed or should the Wikimedia record simply be modified to reflect the lack of definitive evidence? I'm new to FAC so I'm not sure what the best course is here. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , any thoughts on this issue (or the other unresolved comment below)? Thanks for the comments! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The easiest solution for Harris & Ewing images is to rely on the Harris-Ewing tag and omit any other tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Done for these images (and, for good measure, the other in the series on Wikimedia). Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * File:Detroit_Photographic_Company_(0394).jpg: source link is dead
 * Fixed. Refound link (here) and updated Wikimedia record accordingly.


 * File:Photo_of_Mary_Van_Kleeck.jpg should use original not upload date, and when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This one is problematic. I uploaded a higher resolution version of this image, but the original was uploaded without a lot of good information, as you say. I'm not sure when the original date is. A digital display record of the same image exists at the LoC, but has no further information. I think, that unless you have another suggestion, this image should be removed from the article (and probably Wikimedia too) until its rights situation can be ascertained. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless more information can be found this should probably be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Removed and replaced with File:"Men wanted today to work on pulpwood cutting, logging and in saw mills" - NARA - 515003.jpg, which is an US Employment Service poster. Should be good on rights with this one.

Comments by Epicgenius
Hello. I will leave some more comments later. (Note that I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.) On first glance this is what I saw:
 * Of Dutch origin, Van Kleeck was a lifelong New Yorker, - This reads strangely. And the link leads to "Dutch American".
 * Fixed. Rephrased the sentence (and the following one). The link leads to Dutch American since Van Kleeck was a Dutch American - I think that makes more sense than any other potential link. What would you suggest? Ganesha811 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "A Dutch American, van Kleeck was a lifelong New Yorker". Or "Van Kleek was a lifelong New Yorker of Dutch origin". Either is fine. epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the suggestions - went with the first. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, be consistent when you capitalize or lowercase "van Kleeck" in the middle of sentences.
 * Fixed. Yeah, I did another runthrough to make sure these are right and caught a few.


 * undergraduate studies at Smith College - where's Smith College? Relevant because the previous sentence mentions her being a lifelong New Yorker, so this implies Smith College is elsewhere.
 * Fixed. Added "in Massachusetts" to clarify.


 * President Wilson - president of where? We can't assume all readers are Americans.
 * Fixed I actually disagree that this is needed. While all readers may not be Americans, I think it is clear from context that we would be talking about the American president here - to help clarify this, I added "U.S." before Army in the preceding sentence, and "American" before War Department in the preceding clause. The following sentence also mentions her/this action's Americanness. Writing "American President Wilson" or "President of the United States Wilson" seems a bit awkward here. If you feel strongly, though, I can edit again to reflect your views. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, what you added is fine. In the future "U.S. President" (or US President) is fine. epicgenius (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , great, thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Also jumping down to the end:
 * An excerpt from that questioning follows below: - "below" is redundant. In almost every version of the article, the text that follows is located below.
 * Fixed. Good call, thanks.


 * Van Kleeck died of heart failure during surgery to replace a broken hip on June 8, 1972, in Kingston, New York, aged 88 I would consider rewording this, since it currently reads awkwardly.
 * Fixed. Rephrased the sentence. Let me know if you think the new version has any issues. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think length is a problem (it has 14,000 bytes of readable prose, so it's already pretty long). I will check more later. epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not forgotten about this. I am studying for a test tomorrow but hope to have some more comments afterward. epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the comments so far! I'd welcome any other comments you have. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. It seems as though I have indeed forgotten about this. Let me take a look at the rest of the page shortly. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 More comments:
 * Eliza Mayer of Baltimore - do we know Van Kleeck's mother's occupation? Asking only because we only have the father's occupation as well.
 * Response: I don't know of any sources that explicitly an occupation for her. In the absence of other evidence, I assume she was a homemaker. I do recall a source that Eliza was her father's favorite child, the youngest and only daughter, but that didn't seem relevant enough to Mary van Kleeck to put in this article.
 * This is a minor detail anyway, so it's fine. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Flushing High School - the fact that this is in NYC could probably be mentioned, since the context is that she grew up elsewhere.
 * Fixed. Added "in New York City".


 * where she thrived - studying calculus - should be either a spaced en-dash, or an em-dash per MOS:DASH. Check the article for other instances of this as well
 * Fixed. I didn't see any others but I'll keep a weather eye out for this and other style issues.


 * As part of this work, van Kleeck carried out investigations of enforcement of the labor laws governing the workweek, then limited to 60 hours, a provision which was frequently ignored by employers - This wording feels awkward. I understand the message here, but the second half doesn't flow well. I suggest something like "which was limited to 60 hours at the time, though this provision was frequently ignored by employers".
 * Fixed. Adopted your wording, which I agree is clearer.


 * , which was the start of a relationship which would last for forty years. - the word "which" is repeated in a short span here; replace one of these words, or cut the first "which was" completely.
 * Fixed. Deleted 'which was.'


 * The organization had been founded the same year - I think "the same year" can also be cut or reworded. Unless you were intending to say Van Kleeck gained support from the Russell Sage Foundation in 1907, shortly after its establishment in the previous sentence. In which case, definitely reword it, because this is repetitive.
 * Fixed. Cut 'the same year', moved phrase 'shortly after its establishment' in previous sentence. I think it flows better now, but let me know what you think.


 * In 1916, van Kleeck persuaded the Foundation to create the Division of Industrial Studies with her as its head. - This is not directly sourced. Is it related to the next paragraph? If so, move this sentence to the following paragraph instead.
 * Fixed. This was actually just a missing citation, which I've now added from a previously added source. In any case I agree the sentence works better as the lead of a new paragraph, and have moved it accordingly.


 * , according to the Encyclopædia Britannica - what is the purpose of this fragment? (Especially since you already have a reference.) If it's particularly important to include this in-text attribution, this can stay. If not, cut it.
 * Response: this was added at Coemgenus's suggestion as part of the mentoring process. They wrote: ""she became a notable figure in the study of industrial labor conditions" --someone will probably ask you to attribute this in the text, showing that it's the view expressed in a reliable source and not your own opinion". Hence the fragment. I'm happy to cut it if you think it significantly detracts from the article.
 * In this context, it should be good. epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * She recommended the creation of a Women's Bureau in the American War Department, and as a result President Woodrow Wilson appointed[14] van Kleeck to lead a new Women in Industry Service group, a sub-agency of the Department of Labor.[20] - ref 14 has an unusual placement here. Is it being used to cite the fact she was appointed, as opposed to elected or something else?
 * Reponse: it is placed there to reflect the fact that she was appointed directly by President Wilson, and not some other executive functionary - this fact is reflected in source [14], but not in source [20]. Is there a standard protocol for sourcing cases like this?
 * Generally, refs "should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies" (MOS:REFPUNCT) so I think it's fine. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In December 1918, the group published a wide-ranging report entitled Standards for the Employment of Women in Industry, which was later used as the basis for the groundbreaking Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which applied basic working standards to men and women throughout the country. - this sentence needs to be split or reworded. It looks like a run-on sentence to me.
 * Fixed. Split sentence after the report name to avoid run-on.


 * Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover's administrations - since these are multiple administrations, should be "Harding's, Coolidge's, and Hoover's".
 * Fixed.


 * including the President's Conference on Unemployment in 1921 - How come this is part of the preceding sentence (about serving on various committees) instead of the following sentence (about the unemployment conference itself)?
 * Response: Honestly just for flow. I think it's difficult to make the second sentence work as a non-run-on, and the phrase you highlighted in the previous sentence connects the two neatly. However if you feel there's a better way to structure this paragraph I'm very open to suggestions. :)
 * I didn't even notice. I was thinking you can split the Conference on Unemployment text into two sentences, but on the other hand, that might give too much weight to that particular detail. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * she resigned after one day in protest due to her belief - this needs punctuation, or rewording. I take it she resigned in protest after one day? Otherwise this is very confusing.
 * Fixed. Reordered phrases so it now reads "She resigned in protest after one day due to her belief...".


 * What's the NRA?
 * Fixed. - National Recovery Administration - I expanded the acronym in text.
 * Good thing you did that as well. My mind jumped to the rifle club instead :) epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * She lost the election and turned her focus to nuclear activism and disarmament work.[15][3] - Was she a third-party candidate? In any case, the ref order should be fixed so [3] is before [15].
 * Response/Fixed. Switched ref order. Yes, she was a third-party candidate, as described in the previous sentence.


 * Van Kleeck died of heart failure at the age of 88 during surgery to replace a broken hip on June 8, 1972, in Kingston, New York.[10] - this sentence is trying to pack too many details into a single clause. Also, shouldn't we mention her age closer to her date of death? E.g. "Van Kleek died on June 8, 1972, at the age of 88 in Kingston, New York. The cause of death was listed as heart failure, which occurred during surgery to replace a broken hip" (I do not recommend this wording, but this is an example of what I am talking about.)
 * Fixed? Rephrased. Removed "during surgery to replace a broken hip" entirely, simply because it doesn't seem needed and is awkward to fit in. Moved her age to new, short final sentence. Let me know what you think. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This way works fine as well. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

These are all my comments for now. Ping me back after you resolve these, and I will have another look. epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , pinging as requested! Thanks for all the comments. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Support on prose. I think all my concerns have been resolved. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Dudley

 * I will try to comment on this article, but there seems to me a problem due to differences in American and British usage. You refer to "advocating a radical agenda for social workers and laborers". In Britain a social worker is a specialist profession which assists and supports vulnerable people, especially children in danger of abuse. You seem to be using the term in a broader sense, but I am not sure what. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dudley Miles, this is a great point. I think it's really a question of difference in historical meaning rather than US-UK difference. Nowadays the American conception of a social worker is pretty much what you described. Historically, though, (at least in the United States) social work was a field which was concerned with the improvement of society through specific reforms. A 'social worker' from 1930 might today be described as a social scientist, a social reformer, an activist, or some combination of the above. I'm not sure what the best solution is to address this discrepancy between the historic use of the term and its contemporary, more modern definition. Generally, social work in the past focused on communities and societies, and contemporary social work focuses on individuals. Let me think about it, and if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest using the term social reformer and where the old term is used in the name of an organisation, just clarify with something like (now called social reform}. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for your suggestion, Dudley Miles. I've edited the article accordingly. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Van Kleeck's experiences with and research into capitalism led her to become a passionate socialist." This is not WP:POV. It was her interpretation was led her to socialism.
 * Fixed, I hope. I rewrote the paragraph with material from an existing source, 'Beyond the Rank and File Movement: Mary van Kleeck and Social Work Radicalism in the Great Depression, 1931–1942.' There should be more detail and less POV issue. Let me know what you think.
 * This sentence is still unchanged in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Good catch, I've edited the lead sentence as well, thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "a joint postgraduate fellowship from the College Settlement Association". In this and the following paragraph you say a good deal about her research but nothing about the publication of the results.
 * Response: I'm afraid this is because I just don't know much about her early research. I know that she never received a PhD, but sources are generally vague about this period of her life and it is possible that much of it was never published in any formal way, or has just been lost.
 * There is information about slightly later books she wrote at, Catherine Reef, Working in America, p. 410. Some of her dates are different from yours, but as she cites no sources that is probably not significant. You may be able to get access to the passage by googling her, but I can email you the page if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks. I was able to get access, and I've added a sentence about her publications in this period. I've also expanded a paragraph later in the article about her 1920s work with the Sage foundation, with some discussion of the specific studies they carried out, to give a better sense of her research as you discussed.


 * "The organization had been founded by Margaret Olivia Sage to support social work and progressive reforms". As discussed, I do not think the link is to social work as she understood it.
 * Fixed. Changed to "social activism and progressive reforms through dedicated scientific research", without the link.


 * "working girls should be able to access accelerated studies, published in May 1915". I am not sure what accelerated studies means here - courses at a younger age or ones that they were unable to undertake due to discrimation or lack of finance.
 * Fixed. She meant 'evening school', or what we refer to now as 'night school', without barriers due to lack of finance. Edited to reflect this.
 * The term evening school is still more famiiar to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've heard both, but the existing wiki article I linked to uses the term night school, so that's what I went with. Upon reflection, since Van Kleeck herself used the term evening school, I've changed it to that.


 * "a plan for the uniform creation and calculation of employment statistics across the United States, work in which van Kleeck played a key role". I would avoid saying "creation" of statistics - it sounds dodgy.
 * Fixed. Removed 'creation.'


 * "she opposed the New Deal on left-wing grounds". This is too vague.
 * Hopefully fixed.' See above about the whole paragraph.


 * "nearly 1,000 conference attendees organized to unofficially censure Hodson" The figure means little without knowing the total number of attendees.
 * Response: - I can't find a figure for the total number of conference attendees. While it would be nice to have, I actually disagree that the 1000 figure is meaningless without it. 1000 people is a large number for a single event in pretty much any context, and given that it's accurate according to the source, I think it adds to the article. It lets the reader know that Van Kleeck's views were shared passionately by many in attendance, even if the exact ratio of supporters to opponents is unknown. However, if you disagree strongly, I'm happy to take it out - it's not a big deal in the context of the whole article.


 * "She lost the election" It would be interesting to know what the votes were, maybe in a footnote.
 * Response: Agreed. I remember looking for the vote totals when I was first writing this section, but couldn't find anything. I'll take another look now. Does anyone know of a good source for New York State legislative races, historically?
 * I think the best source would be contemporary New York newspapers, if you can get access to them. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "her focus to nuclear activism and disarmament work" Presumably anti-nuclear.
 * Fixed.


 * "she came under sustained FBI surveillance and government suspicion". It would be helpful to clarify what she was suspected of - secret membership of the Communist Party? subversive activities in support of the Soviet Union? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. She was suspected of being a 'fellow traveler' and possibly a secret member of the Communist Party, according to the secondary sources and the questions she was asked before Congress. She was never accused of anything specific. I rewrote the sentence to the following: 'As a result, she came under government suspicion sustained FBI surveillance as a 'fellow traveler' and possible secret member of the Communist Party, although no evidence of this was ever presented.' Let me know if you think this adequately clarifies the matter.
 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review at the WikiCup.

I'll wait until Dudley's comments are responded to, so that I don't start picking up the same points. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A petty point, but could the lead be reduced to three paragraphs? (Without losing any words.)
 * Fixed. Recombined to form three paragraphs.


 * "advocating a radical agenda for social reformers and laborers." I am not sure that this quite works. Do you mean something like 'advocating a radical agenda of social reform for laborers.'?
 * Response: in this case, I meant a radical agenda for both social reformers (social workers) and laborers, separately. I wanted to encompass her influence on social workers and the rank-and-file movement, and her labor studies advocating labor power like Creative America (1936).


 * The quote boxes across the middle of the article really doesn't work. Can I recommend taking them out of the box and making them ordinary block quotes.
 * Fixed. Stylistically, I prefer the quote boxes, but I see that according to MOS:Block Quotes that they are discouraged, so I've changed them.
 * I got caught by that on my first ACR.


 * "where she thrived" I am not sure what this means in context. Neither of Wiktionary's definitions seem to apply.
 * Fixed: The definition I was going for was 'flourish', but that's a better word anyway, so I've changed it to that.


 * "She served as the president of the SCACW in 1903." Optional: delete the first "the".
 * Fixed.


 * "dedicate her career to service" This could do with a little further explanation. In British English for the period it would be read as domestic service.
 * Fixed. Changed to 'public service.'


 * "investigations of enforcement of the labor law" → 'investigations of the enforcement of the labor law'?
 * Fixed.


 * "her role as industrial secretary" Possibly needs a 'the' or an 'a'?
 * Response: I don't think so? I'm not certain, but from what I can tell 'Industrial Secretary' was a title for the organization and so I don't think would take an article here.


 * Link "social economy".
 * Fixed. Done.


 * "Mentored and trained by Florence Kelley and Lilian Brandt,[14] prominent older labor activists and social reformers, van Kleeck was hired directly by the Foundation in 1910 to lead its Committee on Women's Work,[3] and was instrumental in the passage of New York laws prohibiting long working hours in 1910 and 1915." Optional: split into two sentences after "Work".
 * Fixed. Split as requested.


 * "she became a well-known figure in the study of industrial labor conditions and women's employment in industry, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica." Is there any reason why this particular fact needs in line attribution?
 * Fixed. This was added at the suggestion of Coemgenus as part of the mentoring process - epicgenius also made a comment on it (see above). Given that two are opposed and one is in favor, I'll remove it for now.


 * "Van Kleeck's department became an organization known for expertise on industry and labor, training graduate students and developing new methods of investigation." Consider changing to either 'Van Kleeck's department became an organization known for expertise on industry and labor, and for training graduate students and developing new methods of investigation.' or 'Van Kleeck's department became an organization known for expertise on industry and labor. It trained graduate students and developed new methods of investigation.'
 * Fixed. Changed to first suggestion.


 * "Its work was characterized by "careful empiricism, collegial review, and cooperation with state and private agencies." The MoS states that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in original).
 * Fixed. Added source name in text.


 * "the possibility of employment of women" Should that be 'the possibility of the employment of women'?
 * Fixed. Added 'the.'


 * "she became the first woman in America appointed to a position of authority in the federal government." The source given doesn't support this. It adds "since we entered the war".
 * Fixed. You're right, good catch - I must have misread the source when I initially wrote the article. Edited to reflect this. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Image captions: some of these form sentences and so should end in a full stop (period).
 * Fixed.


 * "which applied basic working standards to men and women throughout the country" I struggle to understand what is meant by this. How can "basic working standards" be applied to a person?
 * Fixed. I suppose I meant applied to their workplaces - weekly hours limitations, safety standards, etc. Edited to reflect.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "according to economic historian Mark Hendrickson" → 'according to the economic historian Mark Hendrickson' to avoid false title.
 * Fixed. Hadn't heard of false title before but that's very interesting, thanks for the link.
 * Then you may like this, allegedly from the NYT style guide. "Do not make titles out of mere descriptions, as in harpsichordist Dale S. Yagyonak. If in doubt, try the 'good morning' test. If it is not possible to imagine saying, 'Good morning, Harpsichordist Yagyonak,' the title is false."
 * A great example! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Optional: run together the last two paragraphs of "Later career". In fact, could you review the paragraphing generally? There are a lot of two or three sentence paragraphs.
 * Fixed. I've combined those two paragraphs, as well as a couple of others. In general, I prefer a greater number of shorter paragraphs, but I think the majority of Wikipedians lean the other way, so I've combined where appropriate.


 * "a socialist disposition for industry" I don't think that disposition works there. I am even less convinced that "socialist" and "centrally planned" should be used as synonyms.
 * Fixed. Expanded to discuss her views on socialization as presented in these two books according to the source.


 * "delivered to an overflow crowd". "overflow" - could this perhaps be a word more readily understandable to readers who do not use American English?
 * Fixed. Changed to 'packed.'


 * "his reaction alarmed more conservative members of the NCSW and led William Hodson, the president of the NCSW" Suggest "the president of the NCSW" → 'its president'.
 * Fixed.


 * "While she was initially opposed to American entry into World War II, viewing it as an imperialist misadventure, van Kleeck advocated for the inclusion of women in government and the labor force during the war" Am I missing something? I fail to see the connection ("While") between her initial opposition to the war and her "advocate[ing] for the inclusion of women in government and the labor force during the war".
 * Response: In my view, the connection is that both clauses are about Van Kleeck's experience during WWII. I wasn't able to find much information about her work during this time (possibly because she was losing influence and prominence). In any case, no big deal, so I've split this into two sentences.


 * "Van Kleeck retired from the Sage Foundation at the age of 63 in 1948, and ran for New York State Senate the same year as a member of the far-left American Labor Party." Suggest splitting the two unrelated facts into separate sentences.
 * Fixed. Done.


 * A general point: when throughout the article you refer to "labourers", do you mean all 'workers', or just the sub-set of workers who are laborers?
 * Fixed. Very good point. The terms are not equivalent - my bad. Replaced 'labourers' with 'workers' where appropriate.


 * "As a result, she came under government suspicion sustained FBI surveillance as a 'fellow traveler' and possible secret member of the Communist Party," Are there commas missing here? Or an 'and'?
 * Response: I'm not sure what you mean. I'm trying to distinguish that by the US government's definition, she was indeed a 'fellow traveler', but there was no actual evidence of her being a Communist Party member despite their suspicion. I'm very open to other suggested wording.
 * It's a grammar point. Possibly the issue is the want of an "and" after "suspicion"?
 * Fixed. You're right, that was the issue. My brain was inserting an 'and' where there was none and should have been. Added now.


 * Is it known where she was buried? (If she was.)
 * Response. According to findagrave.com, she was buried in Saint Luke's Church Cemetery in Beacon, Dutchess County, NY. Findagrave is not considered reliable, though, according to WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. I can't find a reference to her burial site in a reliable source.
 * Ah well, as I say too often, if the sources aren't there, then the sources aren't there. Is it worth mentioning that her heart failed while she was in hospital for hip surgery?
 * Response: That fact was removed as part of a cleanup suggested by epicgenius in FA review (see above). I'm not sure it's necessary to re-add, as it's not really a notable or particularly interesting way to die - fairly standard for an older person. However I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, as long as you, epicgenius, other reviewers and I can come to consensus. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Good, solid work. Cheering to see this article at this standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Sound fixes. Nearly there. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I can find no indication of prior FACs by this editor. If so, this is astonishingly good work, excellent mentoring, or both. In any case I hope that there will be many more to follow. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words! Thank you also to for their mentorship. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
As this is a first time nom from the nominator, we should probably have a spot check as well as a source review. Has this been done? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment: I think that may have done a spot check as part of their review. I'm not sure, though. Is that correct, Gog, or will another reviewer have to do a spot check? Ganesha811 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I may be able to do a spot check - the standard first timers random spot check? Give me a couple of days and I'll either do it or confirm that I won't be able to. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unless I missed something, this is a first time nom for the editor at FAC. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass
Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review at the WikiCup.


 * Year Book of the Dutchess County Historical Society 1. Why is "Dutchess County Historical Society" given as the author? 2. It needs an OCLC - 228773633.
 * Fixed. OCLC added. The Dutchess County society is given as the author because there is no individual author given, and the year book was published by the society as a whole. The DCHS is listed as the author on Google Books and OCLC.
 * Fair enough. Collective authorship is not unknown. (I had a work in my last but one FAC by Hattendorf & Navy Records Society (Great Britain))


 * ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated.
 * Gender and American social science : the formative years should be in title case, as should the titles of all books.
 * There should not be a space before colons.
 * When chapters within books are separately referenced (or articles within journals), the page range of the former should be given. For example with ""The "Self-Applauding Sincerity" of Overreaching Theory, Biography as Ethical Practice, and the Case of Mary van Kleeck" in Gender and American social science : the formative years". (Where it is pp. 293–326.)
 * Fixed. The three issues above relate to one source, which I have now fixed in accordance with your comments.
 * There is still at least one inconsistently hyphenated ISBN; at least one colon with a space before it; and at least one book title not in title case. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Moore, cite 43, is a master's thesis (and it should so state in the reference). WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that " Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Is this the case here?
 * Response: Frankly, no. There was already some discussion of this on the talk page here. The source is used to cite only one fact, that van Kleeck assisted in the development of St. Gregory's church in retirement. However, given the guideline, perhaps it would be more appropriate to remove this altogether, which I've done.
 * It is sad when one has to do that, especially over facts not in contention. Does the thesis itself cite a source which would support this and is reliable?


 * Cite 19 does not commence on p. 706.


 * Fixed. Begins on page 709, thus corrected.


 * Cite 1 should specify a page range, 70–71, not just the page on which the information in question starts.
 * Response: Sorry, which one is this?
 * Year Book of the Dutchess County Historical Society, Volumes 23-30, now cite 2.


 * Citations should only refer to pages containing information that supports the text. Eg, cite 19 d refers a reader to 706–709; but the only one of those four pages which supports the text cited is p. 709.
 * Question: How do you do this? I messed around with it but I'm not actually sure how to make different references to the same source list different page numbers. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can. (After getting into a complete mess with < > style references in my first GAN I only ever use harv refs. When I start work on a new article, the first thing I do is change all of the cites. If you wish, ping me separately and I'll talk you through the pros and cons.) You will have to set up a separate reference for each page or page range you refer to. Yes, it's a pain. And to verify :-(.


 * The excerpt from the Senate subcommittee questioning is unreferenced.
 * Fixed. The reference is source 42, from the preceding paragraph. I've duplicated the source to put it by the transcript directly as well.
 * I thought that you might. And now you are expecting me to wade through 17 pages of turgid testimony to find the one with the excerpt on. Oh no! Set up another cite with just the page in question on it please.


 * Cite 28: Credo Reference requires registration via a library to access and this should be indicated in the reference.
 * Either all references to books should provide a publisher location, or none should.
 * Cite 37, a and b: each cite should specify the page(s) of the book (The Altruistic Imagination: A History of Social Work and Social Policy in the United States) being referred to. Check to see if there are other instances where this is missing.

Spot check - pass

 * Cite 1: 1. Does not confirm "Born in Glenham, New York".
 * Fixed. The citation for that information is the former [3] citation (Sophia Smith collection), which was at the end of the sentence. Given the confusion, I've moved that citation up to make it [1].
 * I suspected as much. (I do that fairly frequently.)


 * Cite 2: The text states that "Robert Boyd van Kleeck was of Dutch origin", the work that the subject was. The inference is a bit of a stretch, but I'll accept it.
 * Cite 3 refers to an archive of sixty-seven linear feet of boxes, which can be retrieved for examination on a week's notice. Each reference should identify the source to at least the level of the file it is in, preferably more finely. As it stands, this information is essentially unverifiable.
 * Response: Former Cite 3 (now Cite 1) is not referencing the boxes/collection themselves, but the Biographical/Historical article about van Kleeck on this page, written by Smith College as part of their collection description. It's a secondary source depending on the primary source, the boxes, so I think that meets our guidelines for verifiability.
 * Ah ha! There ought to be a way to make that clearer. Let me do some research.


 * Cite 10: fine.
 * Cite 12: a 28 page range does not allow ready accessibility. Please refer each cite to a maximum of three pages; if necessary, cite more frequently.
 * Response: Again, sorry, but I'm not sure how to do this properly within Wikipedia. I tried searching for a guide to citing the same source repeatedly with different page numbers but did not find anything directly helpful. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is vagueness around this. Hopefully some of my comments above both make my expectations clearer and seem reasonable? Eg the one re the testimony. Let me know if not. I think that you are trying to overwork your refs. Eg, again, looking at my current FAC, Battle of the Aegates you will see entirely separate citations for Bagnall 1999, pp. 92, 94; Bagnall 1999, p. 94; Bagnall 1999, pp. 92–94; Bagnall 1999, p. 92; Bagnall 1999, p. 91; Bagnall 1999, p. 95 (twice! a and b in harv refs); and Bagnall 1999, pp. 95–96 (five times). Etc. Which makes verification of each individual claim in the text a lot easier. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Cite 16 c: fine.
 * Cite 43: fine.
 * Cite 19 d: fine.


 * Cite 37 b: fine.
 * Cite 37 b: Does not seem to mention "the organization's annual banquet". But 14 e does; suggest moving 37 b to the end of the paragraph. (Or repeating 14 alongside 37 b.
 * Cite 14 d: fine.
 * Cite 14 e:

Citations match the content of the article they support to a surprisingly high degree. Probably better than I usually manage and impressively so for a first-time FAC. Passing.

I am going to pause here to give the nominator a chance to get to grips with this. (And because my brain is melting.) I would recommend the assistance of an experienced editor in resolving these issues and looking for more. On the plus side, the spot check is looking good so far, the issues are procedural ones. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Just for clarity, I have passed the article re "spot checks", but there are still a number of outstanding issues re "source review". All are readily actionable, if a little tedious in some cases. Give me a shout if I have managed to confuse you with any of the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Response: wonderful to hear! I see your comments on the source review and I hope to address them when I can, though it may not be for a few days unfortunately. I'll ping you when I'm done working on them. Thanks. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Hi &  - I'm working on revamping the citations, but unfortunately due to general upheaval at work and elsewhere, my life is more complicated than I prefer, and it may be two weeks or so before I can get it done. I hope this timeline is acceptable - I certainly intend to do the work as soon as I can sit down and dedicate some time to it. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Unfortunately, for probably guessable coronavirus-related reasons, I won't have much time for Wikipedia for the next couple months at least. Given that, unless someone else is willing to pick this up and get the article across the finish line, it should probably be withdrawn from consideration for now. Thank you to, , , , and for your comments and suggestions. The article is much improved because of them. , I'm not sure if I need to take any formal action or if the coordinators can handle it - let me know. Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As I commented above: "I have passed the article re "spot checks", but there are still a number of outstanding issues re "source review". All are readily actionable, if a little tedious in some cases." If the source review is all that is standing between this, IMO, very deserving article and FA I am prepared to tidy these formatting issues up myself; assuming that you are both happy with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - that would be very kind of you. If you are willing to, please do so! Thank you so much. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pressed for time for similar reasons, but if you need help, Gog, tag me in and I'll do what I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coemgenus. I am waiting on coordinator opinion. I'm not going to put the work in if it's going to be archived anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Gog, I totally missed this in all the ... crises. There is no problem with you doing the corrections. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you both again - I really appreciate your support. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Right. From my point of view, the only thing I need is a page number for cite 37 (Ehrenreich 2014). I can identify it to the fourth page of chapter 4, but I can't obtain the actual page number. If you could either insert it or let me have it, then we are done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - located the page and added it to the article! Thank you again for the work you've done to improve this article. I think given what you said, that unless there are further reviewers with comments, it would be a good time for the coordinators to take a look at this again! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I am marking the source review as passed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)