Talk:Ellis Island/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Utopes (talk · contribs) 03:44, 6 January 2020 (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.
a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Alright. One of my "2020 goals" was to help out with the GAN backlog more than I had in the past, as NPP can become exhausting at times. Now, to the review. The article looks fine, don't get me wrong, but these are some points that I wanted to address:

Small-scale[edit]

"After 1924, Ellis Island was used primarily as a detention center; during both World War I and World War II its facilities were also used by the United States military."

What was the purpose at this time? Was the military using Ellis Island as a detention center during World War I and II? It is not currently clear the way that the sentence is stitched.

Done I tried to rephrase this. During both the world wars, the military used Ellis Island to detain prisoners of war. epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"No charge is made for entrance to the Statue of Liberty National Monument, but there is a cost for the ferry service that all visitors must use, as private boats may not dock at the island."

This is a borderline tangent that could probably be removed. I get where you were going with this, being that "private boats can't dock on the island", but I don't think this is necessary, especially because you use the island's booking costs as a reference.

Done epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"All ferry riders are subject to security screening, similar to airport procedures, prior to boarding. Visitors intending to tour Ellis Island's south side must purchase a "Hard Hat Tour" ticket, which charges an additional fee on top of the regular ferry ticket."

Also unencyclopedic, and not necessary for an article. I understand that you are writing with good intentions, which is why the article was nominated in the first place. Still, Wikipedia is not a means to promote tours of the island, regardless of the intention. This is one of the "large" scale issues as well.

I removed the first sentence. I trimmed the second sentence, but the Hard Hat Tour is mentioned in the history as well, so I think it makes sense to mention it here. epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned both here and in the "South side" section. I personally believe that mentions of this tour should be contained to specifically one section, but this change is not required for GA. Utopes (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The native Lenape name for the island was "Kioshk", meaning "Gull Island,"

"Native Americans" is used in the sources, and "Kioshk" was named by the Mohegan tribe. While the Lenape may have inhabited this area, none of the sources name the tribe "Lenape", but name "Mohegan" instead.

Fixed.

"He unsuccessfully attempted to sell the island nine years later, and subsequently owned of the island until he died in 1794. As per his will, the ownership of Ellis Island passed to his daughter Catherine Westervelt's unborn son, who was also named Samuel."

"Subsequently" isn't the correct word, but I'd like to see the fragment it is a part of removed. End the first sentence with him attempting to sell the island, and begin the next with "after he died in 1794" to keep related subjects in the same sentence.

Done.

"By the mid-1790s, increased military tensions with Britain and France sparked an interest in fortifying New York Harbor, and a U.S. congressional committee had drawn a map of possible locations for the First System of fortifications to protect major American urban centers."

Who "sparked an interest"? Regardless, the term is a figure of speech, and cannot be supported. Exactly what happened?

The increased military tensions. I rephrased this to remove the figure of speech and make it more direct. epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this sentence up because the subject was not clear about who was the person / group that sparked an interest. Because this has been clarified, this is accepted. Utopes (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The individual states had their own varying immigration laws until 1875, but the federal government regarded Castle Clinton as having "varied charges of mismanagement, abuse of immigrants, and evasion of the laws", and as such, wanted it to be completely replaced."

Castle Clinton is not mentioned anywhere in the source, unless this refers to Castle Garden. Why use "Clinton" in that case?

Castle Clinton was previously known as Castle Garden. I could use the wikicode Castle Garden but that would be a redirect. I added a clarifying detail. epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you added does the job, clarifies the name to match the reference. Utopes (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"On June 15, 1897, the wooden structures on Ellis Island were razed in a fire of unknown origin, possibly caused by faulty wiring."

Pure speculation about the faulty wiring, and shouldn't be included without a reference.

Removed.

"No one died, but the wooden buildings had burned down within two and a half hours, and all of the original immigration records from 1855 were ruined."

This sentence could use a re-structure to something such as "While there were no casualties, the wooden buildings had completely burned down after two hours, and all immigration records had been destroyed." The double coordinated conjunction drags the sentence out. This is really just a nitpick on my end.

Done.

"Following the fire, passenger arrivals were again processed at the Barge Office, which soon proved to be inadequate for handling the large volume of immigrants."

While not an incorrect statement, the "proved to be inadequate" is not very encyclopedic, even if it is a common term elsewhere. I'd suggest "which was unable to handle the large volume of immigrants". Adequacy is subjective.

Done.

"the project ran into delays because of various obstacles and disagreements between the government and the contractor."

I would give names the government and the contractor to provide context (such as New York or American government, and I'd use the contractor company's name as well).

Done.

"The new immigration station opened without fanfare on December 17, 1900, and on that day 2,251 immigrants were processed."

"Without fanfare" is unnecessary to include, and something that alludes to this effect would need to be revised to match an encyclopedic tone. What was the reaction?

It was unceremonious, i.e. without any opening celebration. epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Celebration" is better than "fanfare" in my opinion. Accepted. Utopes (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This resulted in a steep drop in immigration to Ellis Island, because inspections were now primarily conducted aboard ships in New York Harbor."

This article has many references, but I'd say that a statement like this would need a statistic to support it's inclusion. This sentence, as it serves without a reference, is an inference made by the author about the effects of converting the island into a detainment center.

This is sourced by the reference provided in the next sentence: Fewer and fewer new immigrants, all of whom now received a final federal inspection on the ships entering New York Harbor, were sent to Ellis Island because their papers were not in order, their status was questioned, or they required medical treatment. epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I'm fine with this reasoning. Utopes (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"With the outbreak of World War II in 1939"

Use something to the effect of "beginning", or "start".

Done.

"By the late 1960s, the abandoned buildings were deteriorating severely: vandalism was rampant, weeds were growing everywhere, and the seawall was falling into the bay."

Second half of sentence is unnecessary as it repeats the same point but with the tone of an essay. Alternatively, the parallel structure can be kept, but just not as a list of unencyclopedic descriptions.

Fixed.

"The government even asked immigrants how much money they carried, to determine whether new arrivals would be self-sufficient upon arrival."

Remove "even"; it reads as if the writer was just as surprised as the reader. This sentence is supposed to set up the next sentence that talks about how "the government wanted immigrants to have at least...". However, this could be mentioned in the sentence prior to this when listing example questions. Something like "Arrivals were asked a couple dozen questions including name, occupation, and how much money they carried. The government wanted..."

Done.

"According to a popular myth"

Popular is subjective, and this instance cannot be supported with reliable sources, unlike the other usages of "popular". How is this myth popular?

Fixed by removing "popular". epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Their popular immersive experience "The Journey" sees students create immigrant personas...and really find a lot of those connections in their own communities."

Unnecessary and promotional. The point that there are many educational opportunities / guided tours is clear in the first two sentences. The rest of it is not encyclopedic.

Trimmed. I didn't add that, by the way. epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Save Ellis Island is spearheading preservation efforts of the south side of the island."

Remove puffery surrounding the movement, per list at WP:PEACOCK.

Replaced with "led". Save Ellis Island was really the only entity that worked in this capacity. Not even the NPS cared. epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The ferry building remains only partially accessible to the general public, despite having been renovated in 2007."

Remove "despite having been renovated in 2007" from this sentence, the word "despite" prompts an opinion of "how is not accessible already, it's been 13 years!"

Done.

"which charged an additional fee on top of the standard ferry ticket to Liberty and Ellis Islands. The additional fee revenues would help fund the preservation of the south side."

The noble cause that this may be, the first sentence is unnecessary to the article, and the second sentence should be removed due to a lack of context, unless there's a way to mention how proceeds from the tour helped fund preservation efforts of the south side of the island. I'd lean towards not including it because the information comes off as redundant after hearing about the Save Ellis Island movement, who's goal is to do the same thing. (Very bluntly, "This cause helps fund preservation efforts of the south side. This tour also helps fund preservation efforts of the south side.")

Partly done. The fee revenues help support Save Ellis Island's efforts. Nonetheless I've trimmed it. epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your mention that the fees go to Save Ellis Island adds the necessary clarification that I was looking for, and addresses the issue well. My piece was that the mention that "funds go to the preservation of the south side of the island" was mentioned twice and alluded to at two others points. Saying that the funds go to the organization responsible for it makes all the more sense, and answers the questions that readers may have. Utopes (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Large-scale[edit]

The "Public access" subsection, while having a theoretical use, is not implemented properly. Currently, the section serves as a way to detail the different types of methods that the island can be visited, such as what tours are available, the services provided by the ferries, and travel-plans (i.e. "a combined trip is possible" bit). This information shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia, but rather the island's website.

The Etymology subsection is not necessary. It overlaps with the content in the history section, which is much more elaborate and well-written, and interrupts the article's chronologic structure. I would suggest moving the content from the Etymology section, and including it all in the History instead, where it can be inserted into relevant locations. The only content being dissolved is the header. The naming of Kioshk can be kept, but in the history instead.

@Utopes: I have resolved the second one and part of the first. However, I feel it is important to mention where the ferries go (since these are the only two ferries to the island), as well as the hard-hat tours (otherwise, we'd be mentioning the south side of the island without any info as to whether it's accessible). I don't think this would go against our guideline of not being a guidebook. epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep the ferry destinations, I will agree. My problem that I found with it was that the article suggested travel plans and additional services offered. The three elements of my first large-scale comment have been resolved, so that bit seems fine to me. Utopes (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two paragraphs of "Immigration commissioner William Williams made substantial changes to Ellis Island's operations...from 878,000 immigrants per year in 1914 to 26,000 per year in 1919." is not chronological when referring to the improvements made to the building. For example, the initial reference of "early 1910s" in the second paragraph is contradicted by the main hospital expanding in 1909, meaning that the former will need to be rewritten, and the latter should be moved elsewhere. Chronology does not need to be strictly followed from paragraph to paragraph, but it should at least when discussing the same topic. In this case, both paragraphs talk about the early improvements specific to 1909-1919, and I can't find a reason to not place the events in order here.

@Utopes: I have reordered these events accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The levels of subheadings should be consistent in the Structures heading. I don't think "Ferry Building" should be a Level 3 Heading. I don't think "Islands 2 and 3" should have a heading; instead, make "Island 2" and "Island 3" Level Three Headings to match that of "Island 1". Separating between which islands are in New York and which islands are in New Jersey isn't important enough to split the heading levels on this premise.

The problem with this is that Islands 2 and 3 are currently fused together as one island. The ferry building is not in either island 1 nor in combined islands 2 or 3. Geographically, islands 2 and 3 are the same size as island 1. Instead I have renamed "Island 1" to "North Side" and "Islands 2 and 3" to "South Side". epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification; I now understand the reasoning behind this decision. Because the islands were labeled 1, 2, and 3, it was hard to perceive the significance of one island compared to the others. The body paragraphs still refer to islands 1, 2, and 3 though; I would run with your idea the rest of the way, and remove the numeric labels. Utopes (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: I don't want to confuse the readers by relying exclusively on named attributes, but I did trim some instances of island numbering. Island 2 refers to the northern half of the southern side of Ellis Island, and island 3 refers to the southern half of the southern side of Ellis Island. It may get confusing. See this map for how islands 1 and 2/3 are divided into halves and quarters. epicgenius (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius:, alright. It seems that these islands are already described as Island 1, 2, and 3; thank you for the information. I was just saying that it would be confusing to the readers by switching naming conventions, whether it be with north/south or with numbers. Even better would be to say "Island 1, or the north side, is...". I would argue that the island numbering is not intuitive to the reader, and would require that the sources be read to understand the numbering reference. Naming the north side as Island 1 without AKA designation would seem counter intuitive to the reader. I will leave the decision making to you, but I would say that having a header on Island 2 and a header on Island 3 but no header on Island 1 is not a step in the right direction, but this is not technically required for GA. Utopes (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utopes, I will do that. Is there anything else this article is missing for GA status? epicgenius (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "Emergency Services" section should exist; the emergency services are rather explanatory and not important enough to be included in the article. Maybe somewhere in the "Current Use" there could be a one sentence mention of "The emergency services are operated by the United States Park Police.

I've moved that paragraph accordingly and trimmed it. I still think the fact that the Jersey City Fire Department serves Ellis Island is pretty interesting, though, especially since Ellis Island is otherwise isolated completely from the mainland. Also, the helicopter medevac is interesting to me as well. epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree with the medevac, but I suppose that because this doesn't promote the island or it's tours, there isn't anything wrong with keeping it. I am a fan of how you organized the notable services. After a second thought, I do agree that the Jersey City Fire Department serving the island is good to include. Utopes (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

Okay: the article isn't bad; far from it. The reason why there are so many entries here is because the article is long. The rating provided is what I have come to find based on my findings after reading the whole article, and not just the suggestions that I gave. I will finish up with my small-scale issues very soon; I wish I could have done it all at once, but there is a lot of content to consume, so I hope you understand. Everything that I mention is easily fixable though, so I'm confident that this will become a Good Article very soon. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utopes, thanks very much for the detailed comments. I'll resolve them tomorrow, as these seem extensive and it's almost midnight where I am. epicgenius (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, no worries, because I'm in the same boat. I'm going to head out soon, and I'll finish leaving my comments tomorrow night for you. Thank you for the work you did on the article! (This nomination was lying dormant for quite some time...) Utopes (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, my review is complete. If you would like to take a look at the rest of the comments I made (and replies to yours), feel free to do so, as this is all of the current issues that I found. Once you fix these, I'll glance over the article one last time to search for any problems that escaped my first takes. Take it away, and good luck! Utopes (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have addressed all of these issues. epicgenius (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Finishing the conversation down here. All that I see left to do is to fix the island naming that I brought up above; after that, I would be willing to grant the article GA status. The reason why I am currently leaving the "on hold" status on the article is because this is the last polish that this article needs. The article meets the GA criteria everywhere else. Utopes (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utopes, Thanks for the comment. I have addressed that now. epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius:, hey there again! In case it wasn't clear, I want to reiterate that using the numbers for the island is not necessarily bad, as long as it is very clear what island "Island 2" refers to, or "Island 1" or "Island 3". However, this is now a non-issue. If you would like to reimplement the numbered islands, then that is your prerogative. The reason why I made it into an issue was because it was not obvious what the numbers of the islands referred to, and I brought it up a second time because there was no longer a consistent naming convention. BUT, this has all been taken care of. The article meets the GA criteria, as all of the POV, OR, and (specific) MOS issues have been taken care of, and I will be promoting it now! Congratulations! Utopes (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]