Talk:Pruitt–Igoe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 15:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Overview

• I'll take this on for review Mujinga (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for an interesting read, I had vaguely heard of this development (maybe via Jencks?), but I didn't know it was planned as racially segregated!? I've made some comments below, see what you think, I hope the concerns over referencing can be resolved easily. I'll put the article review on hold for seven days, it's not a problem if you need longer just as long as we are communication. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• earwig only flags up a blog which has taken content from wikipedia
• article is neutral and stable
• sources are reliable
• broadness and focus are good

Pix

• pix are relevant and appropriately licensed
• on the caption "The complex seen from the ground level" it would be nice to have a year but we don't seem to have one
  • Yes, I believe it was taken soon after opening in the 1950s but I don't know for sure. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• adding alts would be great in terms of accessibility but it's not a pass/fail issue

Read through

• I'll make comments on prose on this version and do some spotchecks on references as I go.

Lead and Infobox

• Lead and infobox I'll come back to last
• lead is a decent size
• "housing project" is currently linked to Public housing, could go to Public_housing#United_States or indeed Subsidized housing in the United States
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• could link high rise which goes to to Tower block
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• could link slum (and on first mention in body)
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• could add about recent plans otherwise we stop at 2016
  • I was going to wait until something was actually built on the site. It's kind of incidental anyway as the article is about the housing project, not the site itself, and I feel anything I could include now would be too trivial for the lead. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  ok fair enough Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• infobox is good

Prose1

• spotcheck 4: "Each building was 170 feet in length and contained between 80 and 90 units" backed by source 4
• [comment] Skip-stop would be annoying if you didn't live on the "right" floor!
• Spotcheck 10: "During the 1940s and 1950s, the city of St. Louis was overcrowded, with housing conditions in some areas being said to resemble "something out of a Charles Dickens novel"."
  • 1940s yes, 1950s? not seeing that
    • Removed 1950s. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  • better to specify black slum areas?
    • I don't see this directly backed by the source and I'm not sure it's strictly true. St. Louis had white slums as well – hence the original intent to house many working-class whites in the Pruitt–Igoe complex. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    black slums are mentioned directly before the dickens quote but i take your point, so that's fine Mujinga (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  • quote is good, but it was said by who?
    • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• spotcheck 10: "Its housing stock had deteriorated between the 1920s and the 1940s, and more than 85,000 families lived in 19th century tenements. An official survey from 1947 found that 33,000 homes had communal toilets
  • 1920s aren't mentioned?
    • Removed. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• spotcheck 13: "In 1947, St. Louis planners proposed to replace DeSoto-Carr, a run-down neighborhood, with new two- and three-story residential blocks and a public park."
  • source backs info but maybe to add it was a Black or African-American neighborhood?
    • I added "with many black residents"; I think describing it as an "African-American neighborhood" goes a little beyond what the source provides. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  i'm not sure how you can miss "many poor African-American families" in the sentence you are citing the rest of the info from - "with many black residents" also works though! Mujinga (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I realize we're splitting hairs here but for example a neighborhood which is, say, 20% African American likely has many African-American families, but it's unlikely to be considered an "African-American neighborhood". Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  From a quick check Desoto-Carr seems to have been a low income, black ghetto which is how I was reading the original source but the article is presenting correct information which is all I really care about, so case closed Mujinga (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Darst stated in 1951" why blockquote?
  • I believe this is a remnant from before I started revising the article (as is much of this section). No particular reason, but I kind of like it, at the very least for the sake of formatting variety. Do you object? Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  i don't see the need for it but if you really like it let's keep it Mujinga (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• spotcheck 11: "Overall density was set at a moderate level of 50 units per acre, higher than in downtown slums"
  • not seeing that on page 164?
    • Sourced to Ramroth instead and removed "moderate". Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• spotcheck 11: (from earlier) "Middle-class, predominantly white, residents were leaving the city, and their former residences became occupied by low-income families. Black slums in the north and white slums in the south were expanding and threatening to engulf the city center.[11] "
  • not seeing that on p164
    • Maybe my copy of the PDF has different numbers? I see at the top of page 164: "Blacks occupied the area immediately north of downtown, while whites tended to live to the south. The black ghetto expanded particularly fast with the postwar influx of poor black population from the South. As the growing slums crept closer to the central business district, city officials and the local business community feared the accompanying decline in property values would threaten the economic health of downtown real estate." I expanded the range to include page 163 though to support the first sentence that you quoted. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  great thanks for the quote, i see it now. don't see "inner ring" in your next sentence on p164 though. also where did you expand the range to 163? i'm still seeing the ref as p164 Mujinga (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I removed the quotes from "inner ring" (I think it's still an accurate paraphrase even if it's not a direct quote) and merged the two citations so they both say 163–164. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  ok Mujinga (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Prose2

• spotcheck 34: Yamasaki later lamented that he "never thought people were that destructive".[34]
  • yes cite backs info in text
• link muggers to robbery?
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• spotcheck 36: "Its location in "a sea of decaying and abandoned buildings" and limited access to shopping and recreation (ground-floor businesses had been eliminated from the design to save money[22]) contributed to its problems. Despite its size, the complex had no public mailbox.[36]"
  • not seeing "a sea of decaying and abandoned buildings" on page 4 of rainwater, also who said it?
    • Oops, citation got misplaced by an intervening sentence. It comes from Meehan, p. 68. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• "reduced maintenance by 10%" - percent per MOS:% and anywhere else in text too
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Spotcheck60: In spite of the widespread issues, most inhabitants of Pruitt–Igoe continued to live ordinary lives,[59] and "the vast majority... responded to their sick society in a healthy manner."[60]
  • I see the quote on page6 but you need to say who said it
    • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Spotcheck 66: AGF on citation
• According to Mary C. Comerio, - who is she?
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• it has been described as - by who?
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• was extremely poor: the buildings were described as - described by who?
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  • these are all the same comments, direct quotes shoudl be attributed and a person should be identified as an academic or whatever
• Spotcheck 22: The landscaping intended to make Pruitt–Igoe "towers in the park" was cut from the final plan, and the surrounding area subsequently turned to wasteland.[22]
  • cite backs info
• "a view prominently advanced by Katharine Bristol" - who, as above
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• same for Eugene Meehan
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• spotcheck 20: The failure and demolition of Pruitt–Igoe damaged Yamasaki's reputation as an architect, and he personally regretted designing the buildings.[20]
  • cite backs info

See also

• This section is overlong per MOS:SEEALSO (reasonable number). It could almost be spun off into a list of X
  • Trimmed a little. I do feel it's a useful list. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  i don't feel seealso sections are worthy of a huge discussion so happy to leave it but i would say for me at the moment it's a collection of places which looks rather indiscriminate. what are the criteria? the problem is when things become lists then another editor will come along and add an inappropriate link and it will be hard to notice it. Mujinga (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I would say the common thread is that all are about high-rise or otherwise modernist housing projects built in the mid twentieth century that suffered from crime or other problems. Many of them were also demolished and subject to architectural criticism, like Pruitt–Igoe was. I think it's likely that readers who are interested in Pruitt–Igoe will also be interested in these other projects. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• The Pruitt-Igoe Myth desrves a mention in legacy section
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• references are topnotch (although having said that, you'd need publisher locations for FAC)
  • Is this true nowadays? I don't see publisher locations in the bibliography of Armenian genocide, for instance. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  Actually I think you are right, the main concern is to be consistent Mujinga (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Overall

@Mujinga: Thank you for the very thorough review, and in particular for the source spot checks which caught some subtle errors. I believe I have addressed all your comments. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, I'll have a look at your replies tomorrow! Mujinga (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Nice one on the improvements, I made some replies, see what you think and then I'll want to do a final spotcheck, cheers Mujinga (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I have responded inline to your comments. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hiya. Everything above is now dealt with, so we just have the comments below. I spotchecked two more sources to see if they back the claims made in the article, one is good, one is not. So we need to discuss the latter. Plus there's the minor issue of a caption. Mujinga (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Extra spotchecks

• From this version:

• 51: By the late 1960s, Pruitt–Igoe was described as resembling "a city under siege" - source backs claim but this is the one "described" left where we don't know who is saying it so I'm glad i randomly checked it
  •  Not done Mujinga (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    What part of the GA criteria requires this? Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• 44: Attempts by local authorities to improve living conditions were handicapped by lack of resources, though numerous programs, including the hiring of private security, rent incentives to attract new tenants, and grants for academic studies, were tried.[44] - hmm the source is talking about these issues but i see no mention of private security, rent incentives or academic studies?
  •  Not done Mujinga (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    What do you mean not done? The claim is backed by the source, the citation just needed an expanded page range. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    Page 79: "Through the early 1960s, the Authority struggled unsuccessfully to stabilize operations... Lack of resources was a constant handicap." Page 80: "In 1960, mainly as a result of the grand-jury action, the Authority hired private security guards at an annual cost of nearly $70,000". Page 81: "Two months of rent-free occupancy were offered certain incoming tenants as an incentive to living in the developments." Also page 81: "And the public housing tenants were studied, and restudied, and then studied again. Washington University received $750,000 in one grant alone to study the tenants in Pruitt–Igoe." Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oh as a minor point i noticed on re-reading the article that the caption "An observer could see straight through the buildings of Pruitt–Igoe due to the large number of broken windows." doesn't really fit the picture (or would need to be sourced if you want to keep it)

• Expanded page range for citation 44 and changed caption. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• • I'm inclined to fail this nomination since every time I do some spotchecks I turn up something needing fixing which makes me lose confidence in the rest of the references backing the claims in the article. I've opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#How_far_to_go_with_spotchecks Mujinga (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Mujinga: Look at the diff. You have found exactly two claims in the article which were not technically backed by the sources (both of which were from before I started preparing this article for GA). The two discrepancies were that "During the 1940s and 1950s" should have been "During the 1940s" and "between the 1920s and the 1940s" should have been "by the 1940s". There were additionally a couple of instances were the sources or page numbers got scrambled but the claims in the article were correct. This is hardly grounds for losing confidence in the references backing the claims in the article. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 22:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    No, it's doesn't help to double down at this point. I have made 14 spotchecks (4, 10x2, 11x2, 13, 20, 22, 34, 36, 60, 66) of which 1 was AGF, 6 were good and 5 needed fixing. I then made two more (51 and 44), of which one was good and the other needed fixing. After seeking other opinions, I am closing this review as fail and wish you good luck with it in future. I think it's close to GA standard and if you go through the citations and check if they actually back the information in the article, a second reviewer will hopefully pass it, should you choose to renominate. Mujinga (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)