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

Nominator: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk · contribs) 17:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we really need to say "renamed" rather than "named" in his honor?

It had a name before ("Tremont Park"), so I think "renamed" is correct.

• I might consider putting his firsts as the second sentence of the first paragraph and move the exiting second sentence to the next paragraph. One should always lead with the article's strengths.

Done.

• "at which time" I might say "after which" to emphasize the causation.

Done

• Is it known when he married?

I am sure the knowledge exists, but I haven't been able to find it.

That's really all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wehwalt: I feel like this article can be substantially expanded as almost 1,500 newspapers show up when I search "Walter Galdwin" in Newspapers.com. Can you hold the review until I make some edits? Jon698 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It did strike me as short.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a lot of mentions in newspapers, but most of it is routine coverage of routine cases he presided over. I didn't see anything that was significant but I'm happy to have another set of eyes looking. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished worked on Kurt Wright (mostly) and will start on Walter Gladwin after I finish reviewing somebody's GA. Jon698 (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith-Mobile: I have gone through a few of those newspapers clippings and saw that you got a lot of the good ones. I made some minor cosmetic changes to the article, but once I'm done with the 1,500 results (which is so short I could do in my sleep) I would highly recommend it pass. However, there is a problem with his birthday as the source you provided 1 does not mention October 21. Jon698 (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon698, I appreciate your input, but I have not used the {{sfn}} form of citations in this article because I don't like that style. Converting to this style of citations is outside the scope of a GA review. Please note where WP:SFN says Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style. Could you please revert your changes or convert them to the existing citation style that I was already using? Thanks.

Just yesterday afternoon, I got the results of an research request back with better sources for the election results. I'll be adding them today. RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @RoySmith: Thank you for informing me of that as I was not aware of it. I converted the SFN references I put into the article into the style currently used. Jon698 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  People should let em know when they want me to look at it again. Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wehwalt I'm done with the citation issues @Jon698 raised. Along the way, I learned that the NY Times's own internal search engine apparently doesn't have a comprehensive index of their own content! A while ago, I had put in a research request to the New York State Library for the official election results, expecting to get back extracts from The New York Red Book, which is what Our Campaigns cites. To my surprise, I also got back from them some PDFs from ProQuest to where the NY Times published the results. Armed with the exact article titles from ProQuest, I went back to the NY Times search engine available to their subscribers, and still drew a blank, although I was able to find the result in their archive of page scans. Sigh. Anyway, now we've got a better source for the election results, so that's a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is an oddity @RoySmith:. Sources are conflicting about what the name of Walter's wife was. Some list it as Anna while others list it as Pearl. These 1 2 say her name was Pearl M. Gladwin and I found an obituary for a woman of that name here. Jon698 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I know, I've seen that. I suspect Pearl was her nickname and didn't see the need to go there. RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One additional thing. The Parks Department says he was the first elected black official in The Bronx. You take a more nuanced approach. Any particular reason? Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It just seemed better to go with the more specific version. The NY Times does it that way, and given a choice between following the NYT's example and the Parks Department example, I'll go with the NYT, which also happens to be how most of the other sources I've seen went. I consider the Parks Department web site to be authoritative for stuff about their parks, but less so for the history of the people they name their parks after. To be fair, Fordham Research Commons also goes with the broader "elected official" version, but I still prefer how I did it. RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @RoySmith: @Wehwalt: I have gone through all 1,500 clippings. The work you did on the article was great. It is suitable to be upgraded to GA status. Jon698 (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Closing as successful. All good.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your reviews. RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]