Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Columbia University tunnels/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Columbia University tunnels[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist (t · c) buidhe 18:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that the map image fails WP:V. I noted this on the article's talk page and explained my reasoning a few months ago, and removed the image from the page in this edit. Normsupon restored the image here with no better sourcing. It still fails WP:V.

The map is described as "Based on the original map by Mike Schiraldi". But there is no WP:RS for that. The caption includes, "Information gathered over the course of many expeditions by many people". Who, exactly? The source cited for the image caption is the Columbia Spectator, which I would consider a WP:RS for some things, but the cited article is, as far as I can tell, a letter from a student, so there's no real editorial oversight. And it doesn't even include the map itself, just a mention that "a highly circulated map was compiled (credited to one Mike Schiraldi)". That's not the kind of WP:RS on which GA is founded.

I agree that the article is in far better shape as far as sourcing goes than when I performed major surgery on it back in September. But the map is still WP:OR and fails WP:V, so should have been disqualifying for GA. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bruxton and GhostRiver: as DYK reviewer and GA reviewer—The map appears to have been uploaded by someone under the username "Mike Schiraldi", so my guess is that Schiraldi decided to recreate their old map and upload it to wikipedia, where no one ever thought to check whether it was the original. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
either that, or someone really cared about this map enough to impersonate Schiraldi—but not enough to care about WP:OR :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith, GhostRiver, and Theleekycauldron: In DYK I was not high on the image based on the visual difficulty/intricacy. It seems Roy Smith has discovered that the image is not properly licensed and so should be removed. The article itself could be reviewed for GA without the image, but it seems Roy Smith has also found other GA deficiencies. Bruxton (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with licensing. It was to do with sourcing and verifiability. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is at least one place that describes the map as reliable: [1] (the version of the map in that article is also the one that Schiraldi uploaded I think). No idea how reliable that source is, but it could be used to explain that this is a claimed map of the tunnel system, without circular referencing as the map seems older than Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, another question is whether the article could just be GA without the image. That would separate the "reliability of the map" question from the "should this be a GA" question, and we could just remove the image until this is cleared up. —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma: Looks to me like the map was uploaded on 2005 June 8, and the link you've supplied is from 2013 September 17. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, it depends on whether we believe what that link says. —Kusma (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why we have rules for what makes a WP:RS. Something doesn't become reliable just because enough wikis have copied it from each other. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that we seem to have no reliable source for "this map shows what the tunnel system looks like". There may be sources for something much weaker like "this is a widely distributed map of rumored tunnels". —Kusma (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to throw myself wholeheartedly into this discussion, as I am suffering from some physical health issues as well as personal business that prevent me from spending extensive amounts of time on-Wiki. I will note that the presence of an image is not a GA requirement, and so removal of the map would not be disqualifying unless RoySmith has found extensive other issues that cannot be repaired in a timely fashion. — GhostRiver 22:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear it @GhostRiver:. Get well! Bruxton (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also wish you well. Please take care of your health before you worry about minor things like wikipedia articles. Your health really is the important thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thirded, we'll all be here whenever you're ready to come back :) you come first theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, I happened to notice this just now. Per WP:IMAGEOR, Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. If that is the primary issue, then the question is whether simply removing the map would degrade the quality of the article so much as to fail one of the GA criteria. If it doesn't, then it may not hurt to remove the map if it violates WP:IMAGEOR, and a new map that complies with that policy can be created instead. Just my two cents. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius It's not the image per-se that's the OR, it's the information it conveys. The paths of tunnels are traced out. Where did those paths come from? I'm fine with somebody redrawing a map to enhance aspects of it, or to avoid copyright issues. But, we need to know where the information came from. This is "based on the original map by Mike Schiraldi". So, where do we find the original map if we want to verify the contents. The ability to verify information is a core policy.
The issue with the map is what got me interested in this, but the more I dig, the more problems I find. Some of them I've enumerated below. I found and raised another issue in the DYK nomination. Overall, I don't get warm and fuzzy feelings that due diligence has been performed in the rush to approve a fun story about contemporary culture.
A Time to Stir: Columbia '68 is used as a reference for student staff at WKCR, Columbia's radio station, used the tunnels to tap the university's telephone system. First, there's no page number so it's hard to verify a single fact from a 500+ page book. I got a copy of the book from the library and eventually found what I assume is the passage being referred to on page 350. It talks about the phone lines being tapped, but doesn't say anything about the tunnels being used. Moreover, I'm not even sure the book ranks as a WP:RS. Sure, it's got a publisher and an ISBN, but I don't see the editorial oversight that's required of a WP:RS. It's a collection of essays. The forward says (page 25 in the ebook edition I have) "The book ... contains more than sixty essays or statements by people who participated". In the introduction (page 52), the author says, "When deciding what to write about, each contributor made his and her own decisions ... While I cannot agree with everything contained in what follows ... there is nothing of import presented here that I know to be egregiously in error." So, it's a collection of first-person recollections. An interesting and valuable piece of literature, but not the kind of WP:RS on which we should be basing factual statements, especially considering that the factual statements we make aren't even supported by the source. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the statement and its citation. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional items[edit]

  • There's a number of places where books are cited. They all appear to be WP:RS, but the citations do not include page number references. There's no way to verify a statement from a 500 page book without a page reference.
  • The citation for Before 1954, when the government of New York City gave Columbia permission to close off the portion of 116th Street that ran across its campus doesn't say anything which supports that statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was actually in 1953 that the street was closed (though the new walkway may have been completed in 1954). I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cite for The oldest section, connecting Buell Hall and St. Paul's Chapel, was built prior to Columbia University's 1896 move to its current Morningside Heights campus in Manhattan... says nothing about Buell Hall or St. Paul's Chapel, nor does it say anything about when Columbia moved to the current campus. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a cite for the 1896 campus dedication. However, I have not yet fixed the part about the passageway between Buell Hall and St. Paul's Chapel. Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed the offending passage. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In many places, the current status of tunnels is noted. These all should be qualified with {{as of}} templates, noting the date of the corroborating reference. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Have all the concerns been addressed? I noticed that the DYK nomination hasn't had a comment in almost a month and the nominator hasn't edited since January. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 The short answer to your question is, "no". My core concern was the map, which is still there, is still WP:OR and still fails WP:V because there are no WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Would simply removing the map, as suggested by other editors above, resolve the issues and allow the nomination to be passed once the "some additional items" issues are addressed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be so bold, you seem to have a vested interest in getting this to happen, which puzzles me. What would be useful is working on fixing the problems I found. To be honest, I don't think this got a very good review the first time around, so we shouldn't be short-changing the second review. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and Narutolovehinata5: absent information to justify this specific image's inclusion, I've removed it. If we ever uncover new information that allows us to redraw/re-add the map, we can always do so. In the meantime, we should probably see what else we can address. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a vested interest in this article, it's more that its DYK nomination is one of the oldest currently active and it would be really nice if it could move forward sooner or later. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of this review is to ensure that the article meets GA standards. DYK's publication schedule is not a factor. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the longer this GAR takes, the longer the DYK nomination takes as well. It would likely come to a point where the nomination may have to be closed for staleness. We're trying to cut the DYK backlog and seeing this GAR move forward would help in addressing that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and RoySmith: a friendly reminder that talking about how fast a process should go does not, in fact, make it go faster. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added {{asof}} in the two place that appeared to need them. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: In any case, now that the images have been removed, apart from the asof templates, does anything else need to be resolved first? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Re-ping due to a typo in my previous comment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 I'm not sure how else to put this, but please stop pestering me. The article needs to be reviewed. It will be reviewed when somebody reviews it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. You were the one who started this GAR so it would be expected that you would be the one who would state if your original concerns have been addressed or not. As far as I can tell you haven't asked anyone to give a second review so far (please correct me if I'm wrong) so I don't understand why you are saying "it will be reviewed when somebody reviews it". I was no longer even talking about the DYK review but rather this GAR itself since I noticed it's been stuck for a while. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, to clarify, are we waiting on some other reviewers to leave feedback, or are we waiting for the items you listed to be resolved? I can take a greater look at the article myself, maybe even add some things, but then I would have to recuse as a reviewer. Or I can just place my concerns here and let the original nominator or others resolve the issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the process ("Community reassessment" at WP:GAR) is that somebody other than me needs to do the review. To be honest, I'm finding this whole thing kind of frustrating. This has been a problematic article for a long time. The article history is witness to how much crap has been added to the article over the years. I went through a few iterations of cleaning it up, and much the same crap was added back. I was rather surprised to see it pass what was clearly a defective GA review. I cleaned up the things I found, but it needs a clean review by a disinterested reviewer. I am sorry that DYK's workflow is being inconvenienced by this, but that's really not a factor in a GA review. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I share your frustration with how long GA reviews take. I've currently got something in the review queue that's been there for over two months, and it looks like it's going to be another 3 months before it gets to the top of the queue. It is unfortunate that GA doesn't have enough qualified reviewers. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Yeah, it's frustrating that the GA backlog is growing again and that there's not enough reviewers to address the issues. I can leave some comments here in a bit so the original nominator or other editors can fix them. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, and that only gets worse for GAR—no glory in heavy-duty maintenance work like this. at least GA reviewers get some satisfaction of assisting in the designation of a new GA. It's the difference between cutting the ribbon on a new highway and actually spending the necessary money to maintain it. It is, to use the cliché, unsexy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

As mentioned above, I've come up with some comments for this page. Unfortunately, I did notice some deficiencies in coverage. For instance:

  • The lead fails to provide an adequate summary of the sections encompassed by the body. Actually, it's only three sentences long, which is approximately one sentence for each section. My recommendation is at least two paragraphs of 3-4 sentences.
  • underneath its campus - Might want to clarify that it's the Morningside Heights campus as opposed to, say, Manhattanville.
  • I noticed that, in general, there doesn't really seem to be a description of the network. E.g. which buildings are known to be connected by tunnels. If appropriate, the number of buildings or the approximate length can be added.
  • There's also not that much explanation about how the buildings are related. Granted, the map did alleviate that issue, and I know where the buildings are, but most people would not. Even if the map were included, an in-text description of where the buildings are in relation to the campus would help immensely, especially for those who have never visited the campus before.
  • The above point also applies to statements like In 1953, Columbia closed off the portion of 116th Street that ran across its campus. Here, you would not know that the Morningside campus is bisected by 116th Street, or that it was even split by that street in the first place, unless you knew about the campus already.
  • Also, the history doesn't talk a lot about the construction of the tunnels. Even if they were built in secret, I'd hope there would be some coverage on that.
  • Time periods or years could be added for some statements, such as during the Manhattan Project. And in a related vein, describing some key terms (e.g. describing the Manhattan Project as a program for nuclear development) would help readers a lot.

– Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist: I thought I'd have time to address the issues, but I'm not finding any space/energy for it. Doesn't look like others are able to address the problems raised by epicgenius and roysmith, either. Let's delist; the next person to come along and try and get this to GA can use this as a guide. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Columbia_University_tunnels/1&oldid=1086681963"