Talk:Pruitt–Igoe/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 20:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Rublov, before I start the review, I'd like to confirm that you've rechecked the source/text relationship -- the previous reviewer failed the article because there were too many problems found in spotchecks. I plan to start with spotchecks because of that, and I see there were no edits to the article after the GA fail and before the renomination. Are you confident that everything is accurately cited? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for picking up this review. I am confident in the accuracy of the citations in the article. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, great. Earwig comes up clean except for mirrors and copies. I don't have access to most of the citations so I'll pick five; if you could post the text that supports them, or links to images of the relevant text, that would be great.

• FN 12 cites "In 1947, St. Louis planners proposed to replace DeSoto-Carr, a run-down neighborhood with many black residents, with new two- and three-story residential blocks and a public park."
  • "In 1947, the St. Louis Planning Commission adopted a plan to encourage working-class families to stay in the city and convince others to move back. Part of the plan included reconstruction of the dilapidated slum known as the DeSoto-Carr district. The neighborhood, home to many poor African-American families, would be demolished and replaced with new two- and three-story row houses and a large public park." [1] Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• FN 62 cites "The project contained isolated pockets of relative well-being throughout its worst years, and apartments clustered around small, two-family landings with tenants working to maintain and clear their common areas were often relatively successful".
  • "Excluding the interior public areas of the development there were occasional pockets that were clean, safe, and well-tended. Where only two families shared a landing, it was clean and well-maintained... One could only conclude that residents maintained and controlled those areas that were clearly defined as their own. Landings shared by only two families were well-maintained..." [2] Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• FN 70 cites "Since Pruitt–Igoe's demolition, various plans have been put forth for the use of its site, including a golf course and a 50-story tower, but as of 2016 it remains largely vacant and overgrown with vegetation."
  • "The woods at Cass and Jefferson Avenues have had 40 years to overwhelm the concrete where homes for thousands of people once stood. A newcomer might mistake it for a park, but that green overgrowth covers what many point to as "Exhibit A" in urban housing policy failure and the decline of St. Louis in the latter half of the 20th century. Since 1976, the vacant Pruitt-Igoe public housing site..."
  • "McKee's plans for the land aren't the first in recent years. Former Mayor Freeman Bosley famously wanted a golf course. Others pitched homes and a grocery store. A world trade center and 50-story tower was one of the more speculative plans, hatched by an engineering firm in the 1980s." [3] Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• FN 77 cites "The galleries, which were unpainted, unfurnished, and dimly-lit, served as hang-outs for criminal gangs rather than communal spaces."
  • "As part of the cost-cutting measures, lighting levels in the galleries were reduced, the concrete-block gallery walls were left unpainted, and no gallery furnishings were provided."
  • "The galleries did not function as expected. Cold and poorly lit, parents did not use them as play rooms... Eventually, the only people out and about were gangs and drug dealers." [4] Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• FN 60 cites 'according to Rainwater and activist Joan Miller, "the vast majority... responded to their sick society in a healthy manner."'
  • [5] Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I've provided the quotes that back each statement plus screenshots of the relevant passages in the source texts. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

All these are fine. I'll continue with the rest of the review, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have two concerns over the images.

• File:Pruitt-Igoe-vandalized-windows.jpg is listed as PD because the author was under contract to the US government. My recollection of previous similar discussions is that a grant or contract from the government does not convey the automatic public domain status that is conferred on works by permanent government employees. I can ask an image expert if you want a second opinion on this.
• File:Pruitt-Igoe-overview.jpg has no source information and just asserts it's by a government employee. This seems unlikely; I found this page which credits the image to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which seems more plausible. Without a source we can't treat this as public domain.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You're probably right about the second image. If you could ask an expert about the first one, that would be great. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 11:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I've struck the one you removed; and asked about the other one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Prose comments:

• "As of 2016, the Pruitt–Igoe site remains vacant and overgrown": can we update this? It's in both the body and the lead. If we keep it I would make it "remained" as that's now six years ago.
  • There are a number of articles in the Post-Dispatch from 2020 and 2021 that imply the site remains undeveloped, but nothing that explicitly supports "vacant and overgrown", so I left it at 2016 as that's the most recent date with a rock-solid citation, but I made the change to past tense per your suggestion. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• "contained between 80 and 90 units,[4] though some buildings had up to 150": wouldn't it make more sense to say "between 80 and 150 units"? If the point is that most buildings had 80-90 units, include "most" in that clause.
  • Added 'most'. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• "south-facing communal corridors": what does "facing" mean for a corridor, which is linear? I initially thought this must mean "aligned north-south", but after thinking about it my guess is these were corridors on the south side of the building, so that all the corridor windows faced south. Either way it should be clearer.
  • I believe it is the latter but the source doesn't specify. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Just confirming: the non-anchor floors had no laundry rooms or garbage chutes, correct? If so, no change is needed to the article; I'm just checking because it's surprising.
  • I can't find anything in the sources that explicitly confirm this, but that seems to be the implication. Meehan notes that cost-cutting was pervasive in the construction of the projects, so perhaps not too surprising. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Are Carr Square and Clinton Peabody worth redlinks?
  • I don't see much about them on JSTOR. There's probably enough ancillary coverage from the Pruitt–Igoe sources to write short articles, but maybe not enough to demonstrate independent notability. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• "developing a Harland Bartholomew concept": I don't know what this refers to.
  • I'm not entirely sure, either, but someone complained the last time I tried to remove it. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• "by this time, Pruitt–Igoe had consumed $57 million, an investment which they felt could not be abandoned at once": this seems to mean that they felt they had to abandon it in stages, but that seems unlikely. Is the intended meaning that they felt obliged to try to find another way to save it? If so I don't think the current wording says that.
  • Right, Ramroth writes "The intent was to save some of the $57 million that had been invested in the complex." I re-worded it a little, hopefully it's clearer now. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• "with an explosive detonation": redundant; suggest just "with explosives".
  • Done. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

That's everything I can see. The article reminds me of the chapter on Glasgow in Richard Davies' book Extreme Economies, which talks in part about the disastrous transition from tenements to housing projects. He cites Robert Putnam's theories of social capital in discussing the problems. Are there any sources that talk about this in more detail? You touch on this when you mention e.g. the two-family landings as being more likely to be well-maintained. I'm not insisting you include anything like this, but it struck me that there might be sources that go into the social capital issues in more detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion. The social angle is the thrust of Newman's treatment of Pruitt–Igoe, though he doesn't use the exact framework of social capital. Something that I discovered while researching this article is that Pruitt–Igoe is widely referenced as an example but usually not deeply analyzed in its own right; Newman himself makes some basic factual errors about the project in his book. I have a few more sources I intend to read in the future for a possible FA nomination. I don't know if any of them will touch on the social aspect.

Thank you for the review. I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else you want me to change or clarify. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I've struck most points above. I think it's a bad idea to keep things in the article one doesn't fully understand, so I would suggest cutting "south-facing" and "developing a Harland Bartholomew concept". If whoever objected last time objects again we can have a talk page discussion about it -- perhaps they will be able to explain it to the point we can keep it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I took out the Bartholomew reference. I guess I don't understand what's so ambiguous about "south-facing" corridors. The term "south-facing window" is clear enough, right? A south-facing corridor is analogous to that. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 11:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess you're right; there's no other sensible interpretation. Then that's everything, so passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)