Talk:Jane Amsterdam

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jane Amsterdam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article. If you have any questions/comments during this review, feel free to ping me here. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	grammar issues with missing commas and a few run-on sentences.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	instance of editoralizing with "but". Also, the sentences about Amsterdam being the first woman editor at a New York newspaper and being one out of a handful women editing for a 100,000+ subscriber newspaper needs to be included into the later paragraphs from the lead.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	easy yes
	2b. 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).	Yep.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some statements are not backed by the sources, including 1973 graduation from college and hired by Connecticut Magazine that year, starting at Manhattan inc in 1983, and Montgomery Country Day School being a high school. There are other instances where there is either a slight error i.e. Edward Roy, not Roy Edward, or a slight tweak needed to the sentence to make it accurate.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	issues with close paraphrasing primarily with the "credible form" and the "six women in the country" sentences. There are other close paraphrasing with smaller usages such as "shortly afterward" and "abruptly resigned", but I'm more concerned with the sentences that are primarily close paraphrased.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think mentioning the comments about Amsterdam by her colleagues and Rosenbaum's dedication to her seems like sidenotes outside of her career at Manhattan inc when the paragraph should be talking about what Amsterdam did there.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think mentioning the topless bar and tabloid journalism the New York Post used to have is too much detailled and shifts the focus away from Amsterdam.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	some neturality issues with phrases such as "full control", "eidtorial control" and "being hard to work with". Also, Amsterdam's quote in Newsweek needs to be impartial if to be included.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no edit wars throughout the article's history
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	not applicable
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	not applicable
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead

• Kutz's Washington Post article doesn't specifically state Amsterdam helped Manhattan, inc. win the National Magazine Award. A different source that states Amsterdam's connection to this specific award is needed.
  • "widely credited with making it into a dynamic, National Magazine Award-winning magazine" - close paraphrasing of Kurtz's article that needs to be reworded, especially with the widely credited part.
• I think mentioning the years when Amsterdam joined the Washington Post, Manhattan Inc and New York Post would help as they are mentioned in the later paragraphs. Maybe also reword "she later" for flow purposes.
• Comma needed after "At the New York Post" and "By the time she left the Post in 1989"Y
• "one of only six women in the country editing a newspaper with a circulation of over 100,000" - very close paraphrasing of the Times Wire Services source that needs rewording.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the sentences about Amsterdam being the first woman to become a major New York newspaper and being one of out six women to edit for a 100,000 plus newspaper subscription should be covered in the later sections as well.

Early life and career

First paragraph

• Was born -> I think it should be "was born on" but not 100% sure.
• If you could reword "the third of four children", that would be good to avoid word for word copy. However, if this falls under WP:LIMITED, I'm willing to leave it be.
• The Literary Journalism source doesn't specify which grade levels are taught at Montgomery Country Day School. Perhaps switching high school to school would work better.
• Needs a source that says Amsterdam graduated Cedar Crest in 1973, and hired by Connecticut Magazine that year as Literary Journalism doesn't state the exact year. Once a citation is provided, the 1976 transition to New Jersey Monthly will fit.
• "worked until 1976 as assistant editor, associate editor, then executive editor" - the sentence wording sounds like she held the position as assistant editor until 1976 then held associate and executive editor her final year there. As Literary Journalism doesn't say the exact years she held each position, I think this needs to reworded to say which position she held first and then promoted later.Y
• Comma needed after "Her mother, Fay", "After graduating in 1973" and "In 1976".
• Literary Journalism said New Times closed in 1978, so it wouldn't be "the following year" as she was there for almost the entire year. As the New Jersey Monthly source also says Amsterdam left in 1978, I suggest combining these two citations as Literary Journalism doesn't say when she left New Jersey.
  • I see you added the New York Magazine citation for this part. Works for me.Y
  • I think the sentence about her positions at New Jersey Monthly and New Times magazine should be split into two sentences because of the "until" part for grammar.

Second paragraph

• The American Lawyer sentence is a run-on sentence that needs to be broken up into two sentences.Y
  • Also needs a comma after "In 1979".
  • How come the length of her time at The American Lawyer is not mentioned while her tenure at New York magazine is? If one is mentioned, then I think the other should for consistency.Y
• Run-on sentence about the Hugel story that needs to be split into two sentences. Not as much grammar concern as the American Lawyer one.
  • "resigned the day after the story broke" needs rewording as it's word for word of New York Magazine source. I don't think "the story broke" would fall under WP:Limited.
    • Do you think "broke" could be rephrased to something like "was published"? To me, broke sounds like a creative word, especially with the phrasing story/article broke. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Cannon's Washington Post source says Hugel left the CIA "a few hours" after the newspaper was published (which suggests the same day), but the New York Magazine source says he left the day after. Which one is right? If it's Washington Post, then the sentence needs rewording. If it's New York Magazine, then the Washington Post source needs to be dropped to prevent confusion.
• "Shortly afterward, Amsterdam was made deputy editor of an investigative unit under Woodward." - close paraphrasing with "shortly afterward" and "investigative unit". A slight rewording tweak is needed.

Manhattan, inc.

• Needs a source that mentions Lipson hired Amsterdam in 1983 to begin the creation of Manhattan inc.Y
  • Kasindorf's New York Magazine source said Amsterdam "assembled a staff" in 1983. I think the sentence should be rephrased to say she hired the people to begin working at Manhattan Inc, not that she started assembling the magazine herself. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Needs a source that shows the magazine opened in September 1984.
  • Edwin Diamond's source addition backs it up.Y
• I think the 1985 National Magazine Award should also state that Amsterdam was editor at the time to connect this award win to her.
• Manhattan Inc. was a finalist for the 1988 Single-Topic Issue, not General Excellence.Y
• I'm not certain about the comments about Amsterdam by her colleague at Manhattan and John Huey. These seem like puffery and I suggest removing them.
• Ron Rosenbaum's dedication to Amsterdam in his book seems out of place. Yes, Rosenbaum was a freelancer at the magazine Google tells me. However, this section is talking about Amsterdam's time at Manhattan inc and what she did there, Therefore, I think this part should be removed as it's not about what Amsterdam did.
• "But she also had a reputation for being hard to work with, going through two executive editors before the third issue" - This is WP:EDITORIALIZING per "but" and does not sound neutral with the "reputation for being hard to work with" part.
• "In March 1987, Amsterdam abruptly resigned in a dispute over editorial control, accusing Lipson of wanting to favor advertisers." Two issues: 1) word for word copy of "abruptly resigned" and "editorial control" that needs changing 2) does not sound neutral with the "editorial control" and "accusing" parts.
  • This sentence is also slightly inaccurate. The only issue that New York magazine specifically connected to Amsterdam is the editorial content dispute. Amsterdam's supporters that left with her specifically had the issue with favoruing advertisers, not Amsterdam herself. Therefore, the advertisers part isn't relevant to Amsterdam and would need removing.
• The Newseek quote is not WP:IMPARTIAL as it's quoting Amsterdam in a dispute. I don't think the quote should be there at all, but if it's important then it'd need to be reworded to satisfy neutrality.

New York Post and beyond

First paragraph

• Comma needed for "In May of that year", "Within six months",
• "given full control" doesn't sound neutral to me.
• Mentioning the newspaper's tabloid journalism and Topless bar headline seems like unnecessary detail. I recommend removing this part and the comma after paper to focus on what changes Amsterdam did, not what the paper was famous for
  • (by the way, the headline is Tasteful not Tasteless).Y
  • The investigative reporting wasn't increased, the business/real estate parts were. For the investigative reports, they were "in-depth" but no mention of increase/decrease.
• "section's book review and travel supplements" - the book and travel supplements are sections in the Sunday edition, not parts of a section.
• "Within a year after hiring" -> Within a year after she was hired (as Amsterdam was hired, not did the hiring)
• "Amsterdam was forced out by Post publisher Peter Kalikow, who reportedly complained that the more credible form of journalism was not helping sell more papers." - reword "forced out" as word for word of Kurtz's Washington Post article.
  • Also the "more credible form of journalism was not helping sell more papers" is closely paraphrasing Kalikov's quote in the article with the "credible" and "sell more papers" parts.

Second and third paragraph

• Comma after "In 1993"
• Not sure what you mean by "largely retiring". The CBS News suggests she left media after her New York Post tenure, but Pristin New York Times's article said she briefly worked on Day One for ABC afterwards. After Day One, she didn't go back into media, so I'm not sure what you mean. "Largely retiring" suggests to me that she still worked in media, but only a little bit.Y
• Her son's name is Edward Roy, not Roy Edward per Anderson's New York Times article.Y
  • You could also merge this into the second paragraph to avoid a one sentence paragraph but that's extra.
• "From 1985 to 2000" needs a comma
  • The entire sentence about Amsterdam's marriage and adoption has too many commas in my opinion. Maybe split into two sentences to avoid the irregular tone with the commas.

Overall:

This article needs a bit of work, with some issues I believe to be quick to fix. For minor issues, there are some grammatical issues with missing commas and run-on sentences, while also having an instance of editorializing per words to watch. Otherwise, the lead also has statements about Amsterdam records of being the first and one out of six women that needs to be incorporated in the rest of the sections as well. For medium issues, there are some statements that are not backed up by the sources i.e 1973 graduation, and statements where there are a slight error (e.g. Amsterdam's son name is Edward Roy, not Roy Edward). Regarding big issues from least to largest: the topless bar sentence is too overly detailled, comments about Amsterdam from other people and Rosenbaum's dedication that I feel is out of scope, and finally, there are neutrality issues with wording such as "being hard to work with" and the full quote of Amsterdam's from Newsweek needing to be impartial. As there's are a lot of issues to go through, I'll place this article on hold for a week and reassess from there. If you have any comments or questions, feel free to ping me here. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: In case you haven't seen that this review has been completed and is currently waiting for your reply. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Thanks for your thorough review. I've begun making some edits, will continue over the weekend. I think some short, common two-word phrases are too brief to quibble over close-paraphrasing, but agree others need some work. I've bee re-adding inline citations that were omitted as the article expanded, and hopefully can strike a balance being adequately verifying the content without hindering readability: I know I don't like seeing footnotes in the middle of sentences. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Thank you for working on this article. I'll be keeping an eye out for further edits as well. I've added a few comments and ticks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Hello. I was wondering when you would be working on this article. Based on your edits in the last couple of days, I noticed you haven't worked on Amsterdam's article since we last spoke. If you are not interested in completing this review right at this moment, please let me know. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Hello again. I see that you have not replied to this comment nor edited this article in a week. As my first ping to you was last Sunday, I'll keep this review open until this following Sunday (15th). If there has been no edits nor comments in regards to this GA Review, I will have to close this review the following Monday (16th) due to what seems to me a lack of interest from you as the nominator. Please note that I will be away Saturday - Sunday due to work and family plans, but will be monitoring this review whenever I get a chance between tomorrow and Sunday. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: :As of my first check today, there's been no additional edits/comments. I'll check in Sunday when I get a chance. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: I've just checked the article today, and notice that there hasn't been any edits to it. Just a reminder if there has not been any edits at all before Monday, I'll be closing this review due to a lack of edits from you as the nominator to this article in regards to this GA review. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: As there has been no edits to this article/review in over a week, I'll be closing this review due to inactivity from you as the nominator. As this article has issues as well, I will have to fail this review. Feel free to renominate this article once you are ready to address the following issues in the above paragraphs. Thank you for your time. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Extra comments

I'm seeing different viewpoints on whether a comma is needed after phrases like "In 1979". Any particular preference? This is a minor point. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)