Talk:Eileen Niedfield

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 13:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Comments will follow in the next couple of days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

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:

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

A random spotcheck of citations to ensure there are no plagiarism, close paraphrasing, or original research. Fortunaa, could you please provide a quotation of the relevant information for the following sources, if possible

• "It's always wise to check the program". Clinical Congress News. Chicago, Illinois: American College of Surgeons: 2. 15 October 1970.
• Eilberg, Joshua (24 April 1967). "Medical Mission Sisters, Extension of Remarks of Hon. Joshua Eilberg of Pennsylvania in the House of Representatives". Congressional Record, March 01 – April 28, 1967. 113: A1988.

Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://archive.org/details/CCN19701015/page/n1/mode/2up?q=%22It%27s+always+wise+to+check+the+program%22
2. https://archive.org/details/sim_congressional-record-proceedings-and-debates_march-01-april-28-1967_113_appendix/page/1988/mode/2up?q=%22Medical+Mission+Sisters%22

Fortunaa (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you would prefer screenshots or if links are enough. Fortunaa (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are fine, thank you. Looking at the first paragraph of the "Medical service in India and Bhutan" section, there is sizeable amounts of prose that is not verified by the cited sources. The "Gazette of India" source verifies none of the first four sentences of the section, and the same goes for the last sentence, meant to be verified by the "Clinical Congress News" source. The "Medical Annals" source verifies the "averaged 600 major surgical cases per year, and had 3,000 total inpatients annually", but does not verify the "130 beds".

This is not the only citation issue in the article. I do not have access to the documents at familysearch.org, but it is listed as a generally unreliable source at WP:RSP. This PDF is positioned to cite the following sentences: He served in the New York 27th Infantry Division when it was called up to national service in Mexico (1916–1917) and France (1917–1918). After the war, he worked as a career firefighter in the New York City Fire Department, retiring as a lieutenant. The only thing you can determine from the source cited is that he held the rank of Fireman in the New York City Fire Department between 1919 and 1921. There are also two uncited sentences tagged with [citation needed].

These citation issues are sadly rather significant, and I will be failing this GAN because of them. There are a variety of other issues I would advise fixing in addition to the sourcing issues before a second nomination. These include an odd layout (there are three sections dealing with her work in India, arranged non-chronologically and rather confusingly) and three short paragraphs at the end of the early life section which breach MOS:PARA. Notwithstanding these issues, this article does have GA potential, and I hope that you will get it to the required standard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eileen Niedfield/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Fortunaa (talk · contribs) 12:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: HistoryTheorist (talk · contribs) 02:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I look forward to reviewing this article. Depending on my schedule, a full review might not come until next weekend, but I hope to review this article in bits and pieces over the week. This review will focus on making original research issues and the other MOS details Airship mentioned, as I trust (but will verify) that the other aspects they checked remain up to GA standards. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Could you provide a digital copy of source #2 please? (I might end up wanting digital copies of all online sources you provided, so be prepared).
  • Actually, if you are able to, could you please email me or leave a message on my talk page with quotes or digital versions of all offline sources?
• School means that this review is taking more time than intended, but I hope to complete it soon.

• I don't know what reference #3 shows for you, but I'm not seeing anything about Niedfield's father being descended from German immigrants and converted from Lutheranism to Catholicism as a young man. All I'm seeing is a record of Niedfield's birth and death dates along with a listing of her parents.
• Ref #4 verifies that Joseph was a firefighter but does not verify that he served in the army during WWI. You're going to need to add another reference or remove it all together.
• I assume that Majorie Niedfield does show up in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden Record, but could you provide me a full quote? The preview on Google Books is acting up and I can't properly view it.
  • I did find this which does verify that she worked as a nurse, but doesn't directly verify that she got a BS in nursing. Alternately, I could modify the text to say that she was a registered nurse.
• Ref #10 only verifies her entering MMS as a postulant and nothing else. Do you have a ref that could back up the rest of the claims?
• Ref #12 doesn't directly support with a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry, magna cum laude, nor Niedfield took her perpetual vows on August 15, 1945, and her final vows a year later on August 15, 1946.
• Ref #13 doesn't support It was then known as the Catholic Colored Clinic in Atlanta, and later as Southwest Atlanta Hospital, now closed nor the 1947 date.
• Do residencies qualify you as a surgeon? Not super knowledgable about medical school, so please inform me. However, the sources cited don't make it clear that the residency qualified her as a surgeon, so please clarify.

• Ref #21 verifies little beyond where Nieldfield worked. I think one of the other refs you cited inline might also help back up your claims.
• Check ref 23 - doesn't seem to verify hospital's services

• The MoS doesn't exactly smile on one-sentence paragraphs like the last paragraph in the article. You could try consolidating it into the second to last paragraph, but it doesn't exactly fit well, in my opinion. It might just be better to remove the information all together, unless something came from that student petition, but it's your choice to leave it in or not.

• Not an expert on copyright or anything, but just to clarify, did William Altoff say that the pictures could be used on Wikipedia? I assume he did, but I just want to double check

@Fortunaa: Sorry for not getting onto this review faster! I was busier than I anticipated and thus haven't had much time to check this article. These are all the issues I've picked up on now; I may find more later and I'll add them to the review page. I'm going to put the review on hold and I'll give you 7^[a] days to start improving the article. After that, we can reassess. The article is pretty well-written overall, but I think Airship's concerns are legitimate in terms of original research. Maybe I'm missing something and I'd love to be proven wrong because this is a pretty sweet article. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending so much time on this! I'm really honored. And yes, I learned a hard lesson with this one. Here's why that under-sourced material is there. I found a relative of hers on Ancestry who was excited about the prospect of a Wikipedia page, and who gave me the photos (and yes, I got his permission in writing to put them on Wikimedia Commons, which I'll share with you in a grouped set later), but he also gave me family details that I then attempted to back up with third-party sources so they wouldn't be original research. That was a mistake, because it gave me extra work to do. I have learned after this article to only use the third-party sources and never deviate, not even when charming relatives come forward with wonderful facts, because the sourcing is too iffy. I'm a researcher and should have known that, but live and learn. I apologize for making more work for you. My solution for now will be to delete the more lightly sourced stuff or maybe put it in a section called family lore if that's acceptable. I also have better photos from her religious congregation now, so I'll add those. All of them, family and congregation, are happy that this is going forward, but in the future I'll remember not to let their joy undermine the strong relationship between fact and citation. Fortunaa (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should just ask them to write a book for a well-respected publisher and there's that! (JK) I'll have to take a look at the modifications when you make them, but the chances of this article passing GA are kinda low. Standards are standards and I gotta uphold them, even if it brings me sadness to do so. However, I'm totally rooting for this article to become a GA and would be happy to help you improve it. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me to do it, but because improvement seems unlikely to happen, I'm gonna fail this GA nom. The article definitely has GA potential, but because a good chunk of content relies on unpublished oral sources not listed inline, it does not meet GA standards for original research at this moment. Future improvements addressing concerns could definitely merit a re-review. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]