Talk:Bessie Van Vorst

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Bessie Van Vorst dressed
as a pickle factory worker

• ... that articles by Bessie Van Vorst (pictured), a pioneer investigative journalist who worked undercover in US factories in the early 1900s, inspired President Theodore Roosevelt to write her a supportive letter?

• ALT1: ... that articles of Bessie Van Vorst (pictured), a pioneer investigative journalist, inspired President Theodore Roosevelt to write her a letter? Source: "[1]"
• ALT2: ... that Bessie Van Vorst (pictured) went undercover in the early 1900s to secretly learn about the working conditions at the US factories?
• ALT3: ... that pioneer undercover journalist Bessie Van Vorst (pictured) worked at several factories to investigate the working conditions.

Created by Less Unless (talk). Self-nominated at 00:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

• Created within the last seven days and meets the required length. It scores high on the copyvio detector, but this is probably because of the extensive quotes used. The hook is interesting and reliably sourced. Awaiting QPQ. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Missouri Lumber and Mining Company (even though it's my first nomination)

Amanuensis Balkanicus, please take a look. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to go. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• The hook, at 209 characters, not counting (pictured), was over the maximum limit of 200. I changed "one of the pioneer investigative journalists" to "a pioneer investigative journalist", which brings it down to 199. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandarax, thank you for the correction. Less Unless (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook is really too long. Hooks should be short, intriguing tidbits that will get readers to click on the article. This hook tells me everything I need to know. BTW are the long quotes in the article public-domain? Yoninah (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, thank you for pointing this out as it's my first nomination and I am grateful for your tips. I have changed the hook, please take a look. As for the quotes - they are direct quotes with source provided which is allowed by the policies. Less Unless (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Less Unless: thank you. Please note that I have restored the thread and renamed your new hook ALT1. We do this so prep builders can follow the discussion.
• Direct quotes are of course fine, but not too many of them. I think you could paraphrase some of them.
• Your new hook is rather weak. Especially for an image slot, the hook should be much more punchy. Is there another fact that you could pull from the article? I could suggest something tomorrow. Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Less Unless: the image caption also has nothing to do with the hook. I think you could come up with a great hook that mentions her infiltrating the pickle factory. Yoninah (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, I've added 2 more hooks based on her factory work. I would very appreciate your help on that. Thank you.Less Unless (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'll suggest something else shortly, but there is serious close paraphrasing from the Notable American Women source that must be rewritten in your own words. You cannot simply copy out of your sources. Here are some examples from that book; I have not checked the other references:

• Source: Bessie Van Vorst described the difficult working conditions and mean living she had observed and their bad effects on women and young girls.
• Article: In their book the Van Vorsts described the difficult working conditions and mean living they had observed, and their bad effects on women and young girls.
• Source: In her chapter "The Meaning of It All" she called for a more humane attitude toward women in general and particularly the young.
• Article: Bessie called for a more humane attitude towards women in general and particularly the young.
• Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, I have corrected the phrasing. Less Unless (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Less Unless: Sorry, but changing a few words here and there and leaving the rest of the words and the sentence structure intact is not called paraphrasing. You have to read the source, think about what it is saying, and write something else in your own words and style. Yoninah (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• I did more editing and wikifying on the article, but left those lines for you to clean up. I added some "citation needed" tags as well. Yoninah (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Here is an alt suggestion:
• ALT4: ... that American journalist Bessie Van Vorst (pictured) worked undercover in a pickle factory and other worksites to expose labor conditions for women and children in the early 1900s? Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More close paraphrasing:

Source: Even after returning to Paris, she continued writing and served as a correspondent for publications operating out of both France and the United States, offering her feelings on a number of social issues.

Article: Even after returning to Paris, Van Vorst continued writing and served as a correspondent for publications out of both France and the United States, writing on a number of social issues.

Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement. I have corrected some wording, added more refs and a bit of curious information. Unfortunately I couldn't find any reliable sources to back the cn-tags. Less Unless (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I have cleaned up the lingering issues in this nomination. I have removed all the close paraphrasing, added a citation already in the article for her death date (and altered her birthdate to just the year, in keeping with the source), and removed unsourced information. Since I suggested the ALT4 hook, calling on another reviewer to complete this review. Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah and Less Unless: I was going to review this but I stopped short because of the separate section on "Criticism". While I understand a CSECTION is not against the "rules", I am of the opinion that separating it always gives criticism undue weight. Is there anyway you could incorporate the section into the "Undercover investigations", or even better to reframe it as a section on "Legacy" or a more NPOV section heading. Legacies can be both positive or negative. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to attribute criticism to modern authors, they should be introduced (not just mentioned by surname) and you should mention that they are not contemporaneous which affects due weight. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Coffeeandcrumbs, I did a bit of cleanup, but it seems like the authors aren't interested anymore? Drmies (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The nominator hasn't edited in a week, so if they can't return, we may either need another editor to address the issues, or mark this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I disappeared, was out of reach for some time. I'll take a look later this evening and try to address all the notices you mentioned. Thank you for your involvement!Less Unless (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs I have moved the Criticism part to the "Undercover investigations", however after I looked at the article your way, it seems to me that there's something off. Can you please take a look. Less Unless (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, the issue seems to me that we only have criticism of their work. Were there any positive reception of their work in contemporary literature. Can that be incorporated without WP:Undue weight? If so, you can create a section called "Reception" or "Contemporary reception" instead of "Criticism".--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs I had tried to find the positive feedbacks before the last edit, however I didn't succeed. Most of the contemporary mentions are just factual without any appraisal. The only positive feedback i've found is the one by T.Roosevelt, which is already stated in the article. Therefore, maybe it's sensible to make the criticism part somewhat shorter? I don't think we should exclude it completely. Less Unless (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Less Unless, nothing should be excluded if it has a proper source. I am only thinking about presenting it in a balanced manner. I think the current version is fine. If you are OK with it, I would like to move forward with the review. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs I'm fine, will be looking for more info in the libraries when they're open. Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

New enough when nominated, long enough and written from NPOV and good sourcing. No apparent plagiarism according to Earwig's. ALT4 is cited in-line and interesting. I added "American journalist" to the hook for clarity and trimmed the image caption. QPQ requirements are met but not necessary for a new DYK nominator. Image is PD and all good for Main Page appearance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)