Talk:Moshe Katz (editor, born 1864)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy to take this one on for review. I'll start by giving my notes, then a preliminary check against the GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Notes

• Are you sure that "Moshe" is the most common spelling, rather than "Moishe" or "Moyshe"?
  • Yes, that's what Avrich and Friedman used
• Can you provide the spelling of his name in Yiddish?
  • I assume it's something like "‏" but I haven't seen a source print it, so I would usually stick with the best-known English name
• Seems odd to title the section "Early life and career" when it covers his entire biography, not just the earlier parts. Suggest simply "Biography" or "Life and career".
  • ✓
• Spotcheck: Falk 2008, pp. 529–530. Verified.
• Spotcheck: Weinstein & Wolfthal 2018, p. 62. Verified.
• Spotcheck: Avrich 1988, p. 180. Verified.
• Spotcheck: Avrich 1988, pp. 183–184. Verified.
  • You should probably mention that the editor in question was Morris Winchevsky.
    • I considered that but I think it's trivia, as Winchevsky declined and ultimately the part that matters most is that he participated in the selection
• Spotcheck: Avrich 1988, p. 178. Verified.
• "Philadelphia Knights of Liberty Sunday anarchist forums" Wondering if this should be possessive, like say "Philadelphia Knights of Liberty's Sunday anarchist forums"?
  • ✓ Works either way
• Spotcheck: Avrich 1988, p. 181. Verified.
• Spotcheck: Avrich 1988, p. 185. Verified.
  • "Katz and Hillel Solotaroff led the Fraye Arbeter Shtime" I think the use of "led" here is a bit unclear. Source seems to imply they were editing?
    • ✓ Sounds good. I wasn't fully satisfied with how the source put it.
• Spotcheck: Avrich 1988, p. 179. Verified.
• Spotcheck: Avrich 1988, pp. 186–187. Verified.
• "beginning in 1902" Did the union begin in 1902 or did Katz start his job as treasurer then? It's currently unclear.
  • ✓
• Spotcheck: Howe 1989, p. 294. Verified.
  • Consider converting this to Sfn formatting, for the sake of consistency.
    • It's a minor ref and I wouldn't consider it part of the topic's bibliography, hence the separation
  • Are there any more details about Katz in Howe's book?
    • Nope
• "The Kropotkin and Berkman translations were done with Abraham Frumkin" Avrich 1988, p. 185 doesn't mention Frumkin. Might be worth rearranging the citations so they're placed in line with what they verify. Also maybe add "together" before "with"?
  • The paragraph has two citations, so both apply to the paragraph
• You should rearrange the sentences about his transition towards Zionism, bringing them together. It currently reads like a repetition of information.
  • ✓
• "As one of few New York Jews to relocate," To relocate to Philadelphia? Or generally?
  • ✓
• Might be worth linking to Pogroms during the Russian Civil War.
  • ✓
• I can assume no photographs of Katz are available. Are there any images we could include in this article for context?
  • The one I found was for the Communist Katz and I haven't found any others (or even an archive that would appear to have one). I could include an image of the periodicals he published but I feel that those would be more decorative in this short of an article.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A couple cases of unclear prose, noted above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Only one issue with a section header.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   A couple cases of inline citations being misplaced, although this has only been a very minor issue with verification.

   C. It contains no original research:

   All spotchecks verify the written information.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Found no cases of copyvio.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Nominator appears to have found everything there is to find in the English language literature.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   If anything I think it could add a bit more context in some places.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No reversions in edit history.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No images included.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Might be worth adding cover images of one or two of the journals/newspapers that Katz worked on? Even a small amount of visual context would be nice, I think.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article is very close. It appears to be as complete as it'll ever be. I only have a few minor notes that I think are holding this back from a quick pass. Ping me once these are addressed and I'll be happy to take another look. Nice work researching this! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the review! Made some edits/replies and I'll look into getting the title page of one of his translations. czar 13:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok! I'm happy to pass this now. Nice work :) --Grnrchst (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.