Wikipedia

Talk:Leo Frank/GA2

< Talk:Leo Frank
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Tonystewart14 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago92 comments7 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply


Review before rewrite

Tick box edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Comments on GA criteria edit

Pass
  • Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • There have been editorial disagreements, and while there are some reverts on the article, most discussion has taken place, appropriately, on the talkpage, so edit wars have not broken out. It would be fair to say that this is a lively and active article rather than an unstable one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Statements in the article appear to be based on sources. No indication of original research. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Article is richly cited to a wide range of reliable sources. My concern regarding neutrality is more to do with selection and presentation of details from sources rather than the sources themselves. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Query
  • Image captions range from nothing at all to nine lines long. Captions are a matter of editorial judgement, though it's worth looking at the guidance in WP:Captions to ensure the captions are more consistent and helpful, and not too distracting. A rough guide would be to use the caption to identify the image, and to use the main body of the article to carry essential information. For example - the Tom Watson quote only appears in the caption; if the quote is considered important, it should be in the main body. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I removed the quote from the Watson caption, as the point of it was to show that he was inflammatory in regards to his rhetoric relating to the case, which is covered in the article well without the quote. I also added a caption to the Slaton and wife image, as it lacked one previously. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I noticed that the infobox image was replaced with another one that has some imperfections, and a different file name without his birth and death years. Was this for copyright reasons? Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Same image, with noise reduced and some clarity brought in which reveals the imperfections (and as we are an encyclopedia we wouldn't normally remove imperfections from an original image). The file name is different because it's the one stored on Commons rather than the one stored locally on the English Wikipedia, which can't be used on other projects. We should use Commons files unless there are legal restrictions, such as it being fair use only. The file name is merely for filing purposes - if we have a file named Leo Frank the next one could be Leo Frank 2, then Leo Frank 3, etc. Adding a date would serve merely to disambiguate one file from another - information about the subject of the image, such as birth dates, would normally be given on the media page itself in the Description field, which is the case here: File:Leo Frank.jpg SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
That sounds good. I'll work on adding details to images and moving other images to Commons that are eligible, which should be just about all of them. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I want to ask you, SilkTork, about how to link to a Commons image when a Wikipedia image of the same name already exists, and how to properly format it with the proof of public domain status. For example, I uploaded a copy of the murder notes onto Commons and under the summary form I added links to the original source and proof that it was published before 1923. I don't know if this is proper, but I felt like it was worthy of being added and would make it easier for a formal image review once the article goes to FAC. Also, I'm not sure how to get the image linked to in the article to go to Commons and not the Wikipedia one. Perhaps the Wiki one should simply be deleted, but the note on that page said that sometimes authors prefer to have it in both places. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

A template was created a few years ago which may be placed on certain images to ensure that a copy remains on the English Wikipedia regardless of what happens to the image on Commons. This was created because it was felt (and is still felt by some users) that Commons can sometimes apply copyright laws too strictly and remove images unnecessarily. If you find an image on the English Wikipedia that has such a template, it would not be appropriate to move the image from the English Wikipedia to Commons - you would need to upload the image to Commons separately. If you have found a new image that is not already on Commons that you wish to upload, then - unless you have an objection to Commons - please upload it directly to Commons. Once on Commons it may be used across all projects. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • The article is 43kB of readable prose, so is not considered too long; however, I'm finding information that is not strictly essential or encyclopaedic or relevant to the topic, such as "Leo traveled to Atlanta for two weeks in late October 1907 to meet a delegation of investors for a position with the National Pencil Company", "and laughed at the idea of speaking Yiddish", "to use the toilet. After leaving the toilet and checking the back door and basement as part of routine inspections". I think this falls more under 1a "Prose is clear and concise" than 3b "Focused". Prose is mostly clear and readable, though there's five short paragraphs in a row in Immediate aftermath, and this could be rephrased in the opening sentence: "the murder of one of his factory employees", as it sounds like he owns the factory. These are minor points. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
For the delegation of investors quote, it tells of how Frank started working at the National Pencil Company. I think it should stay since it gives context to the rest of the paragraph and explains the relation to his uncle in the industry. For the Yiddish quote, that could be removed, although it is complementary to the preceding phrase about her being different from Frank. It makes it a lot more apparent that the reason she was "different" was because she was not as strict in her Jewish faith. For the inspections quote, I added this recently due to the fact that the old text was uncited. It says why Newt Lee was in the basement area and was thus able to discover the body.
For the Immediate aftermath paragraphs, they are in fact short, but they do appear to be separate paragraphs for a reason, and I don't believe they should be condensed simply to be a more consistent length as the rest of the article. For the lead sentence, I rephrased this to make it clear that Frank was the manager of the factory, but not the owner. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • There aren't details of the autopsy in the article. In my background reading I am picking up conflicting messages regarding if she was raped, and that seems to stem from the autopsy by Dr Harris, which states that her vagina had experienced violence such that her hymen was broken, but that there was no sperm, while another doctor says that her hymen was not broken. Also in my background reading I'm picking up that Frank revealed in court that he was away from his office at the time of the murder, but this is not mentioned in the article. I'm also reading about a bite hoax. Are there reasons why these things are not mentioned in the article? SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Regarding Frank and the time of the murder, please see this version [1] of the article which I referenced in the abortive review. The section "April 26 time line" incorporates both the prosecution and defense time lines. The decision at the time was made to eliminate most of this material because it would confuse rather than enlighten a reader. Adding back small bits (such as the testimony you reference) w/o full context would tend to bias the article in one direction or the other. I'm not sure what reference you are talking about that claims Frank admitted being away from the office. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

From my background reading I picked up mentions of the speech he gave to the court during which he explained his absence from the office at the time Stover went there to get her pay, that he "unconsciously" went to the bathroom at that time. I'll go through my internet history to see where those mentions are. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The word "unconsciously" rang a bell for me. This is part of the claims by leofrank.org et al that Frank actually confessed to the crime -- the word "unconsciously" is given without context because it sounds ridiculous. What he actually said can be found at Lawson (see footnote 108) on page 227. In part he says, "... to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for 12 o'clock until after a quarter to 1 ... I did not stir out of the inner office; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it." This info was in the section "Frank's testimony" in the article version I referred you to.
This all relates to Stover's testimony and the assumption by the prosecution that she arrived before after Phagan did. However there is testimony that strongly disputes this and have Phagan arriving after Stover said she left. Slaton found the contrary evidence convincing and lists this as one of the reasons that he doubted Frank was guilty. It also relates to the actual place of the murder. The "confession theory" is that since the Metal Room, where the prosecution claimed the murder took place, was near the restroom, this was Frank's unwitting confession. However key to this is blood and hair evidence alleged to prove this was the murder scene was called into question by witnesses, including Dr. Harris, a prosecution witness. Slaton pointed this discrepancy out in his commutation order.
The only mention of Stover in the current article is a single sentence, "One eyewitness, Monteen Stover, stated Frank was not in his office when she came to collect her paycheck at 12:05 pm." This sentence implies significance to her claim without explaining that the timing may be irrelevant based on Phagan likely arriving after Stover left. There is no context to explain why 12:05 is deemed to be significant. The bottom line question is whether or not to restore some of the detail of the old version. It should be noted that contrary to my alleged ownership of the article, I had been in favor of retaining the details. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I will take a closer look at the older version you have linked to. It's starting to feel to me that the current version is missing some essential details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the alleged hoax, see footnote 118. None of the reliable sources that I am aware of refer to it as a hoax -- I assume you picked it up from the Rfc discussion. According to Oney, the material was not written about at the time by Van Paassen because of pressure and threats from the Jewish community of Atlanta who didn't want the Frank case brought up again because they feared reprisals. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the alleged rape, Harris implied rape but Hurt, also a prosecution witness, disagreed. A third doctor (Childs) testified for the prosecution that what Dr. Harris saw could have been caused by Dr. Hurt's initial examination in which he determined no rape. The article as it exists only says that at the crime scene "There was the appearance of rape." At the least, it seems that this should be clarified with the conflicting autopsy reports. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Fail
  • I have been looking at a previous version of the article that was linked above. I'm noticing a number of things, including that the older version is more detailed in the areas that seem to matter, such as witness statements, and less detailed in areas that might be seen as non-essential colouring, such as that Frank's widow went to work on a glove counter in a store; however, what I am particularly noticing is the difference in approach - the earlier version in the lead says: "Frank had been one of the few people in the factory that day...", and presents facts in a manner that could be interpreted as suggesting he was guilty; while the current version says: "The basis for Frank's conviction largely centered around the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact", which could be interpreted as suggesting he was innocent. Neither version appears to me to be completely neutral. What is needed is a version that presents all the facts, rather than being selective. I think this is a difficult task, as what I am picking up is that people have definitive views on Frank's guilt or innocence. There are websites devoted to presenting Frank's guilt. People seem to want to voice their opinion. I have no opinion on his guilt myself, except to say that we will probably never know for certain one way or another. What matters for this article is that people coming to Wikipedia to learn about the case should be given the main reliably sourced details, presented in as neutral and balanced way as possible, without any attempt concious or unconscious to sway the opinion or sympathy of the reader. Some work needs to be done by the significant editors to make the article more encyclopaedic, more factual, and more neutral. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Two prominent anti-Leo Frank sources are not used (theamericanmercury.org and leofrank.org), and this is understandable as they are single purpose sources - however it is permitted to use details from such sites as appropriate per WP:BIASED in order to give a balanced account. I don't feel that the omission of those sites impacts on this GA criteria; I am mentioning them here to indicate that when looking to balance the article, it should not be felt that details from those sites (facts or opinion) should be suppressed. It is acceptable to attribute opinions to them as examples of differences of opinion - this can help strengthen an article: when readers are presented openly with both sides of an argument, including extreme views, they can see the points of both sides, and reasonable readers will discount inappropriate views. Unreasonable readers will form their opinions anyway, so suppressing extreme views will not sway them, but will create doubts in the minds of reasonable readers (why have these views been withheld from us?). SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I included a paragraph at the end of the Leo_Frank#Criticism_of_the_trial_and_the_verdict section that mentions these sites in the first reference and a statement from the ADL. It might be worth noting that the second site criticizes the Wikipedia article on Frank. Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Would you look again at your edit, as I think it is a good example of unintended biased editing. If you are able to see why the edit is biased, I think we can be optimistic that it wouldn't take too long to get this article into a neutral state. If you don't see the bias in the edit, then I think we might struggle. If you also spot the unintended OR, that would be a bonus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
While I agree that there are language problems (i.e. "Despite the consensus of researchers"), it is absolutely appropriate to note the criticisms of these websites. Tony chose to attribute it to the ADL but he could also add (and probably should) include the SPLC and Forward.
On another note, I think when you referred to WP:BIASED above you should explain how the websites meet "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." The criticisms suggest that the use of anonymous authors and either hidden or questionable control of the websites would disqualify the sites. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not urging use of or reference to those websites; I am saying that they should not be considered unusable. We do allow fringe or alternative views as long as they are presented proportionally, and it is clear that dubious assertion are attributed to the source rather than to Wikipedia, and the sources are put into context. In my brief research into this topic, those sources do come up as being mentioned by other sources, and there is a concern for what they are saying. We do have to be careful how we use and refer to such sites, but for a complete picture, we sometimes need to mention the alternative views. Tony had a good stab at it above, though the "Despite" intro was inappropriate - it may even be because of the consensus, but either way, we cannot lead readers into a conclusion, nor construct one. A more neutral statement along the same lines would be something like this: "Anonymous websites which have emerged since the centenary of Frank's trial, such as leofrank.org and theamericanmercury, which promote a view that Leo Frank was guilty, have been condemned by the ADL and civil rights groups such as SPLC as being anti-Semitic and misleading.[2], [3], [4]" That allows the facts to stand for themselves. Someone doing a search for Leo Frank on the internet may come upon those sites (as I did), so putting them into some form of neutral but factual context helps folks to understand their perspective when they do find them. But, again, I am not advocating their use or mention - what I am saying is that we need not shy away from mentioning them, as long as any mention or use is done appropriately, and that the use or mention is discussed by the main contributors to the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe Tom spoiled it in the next comment after yours, but I do see how that could be seen as minimizing their views. I took out this phrase and made some other small changes, such as removing the words "in fact" before "guilty" as this could also have the same problem. There could probably be some more content added to this paragraph, but hopefully this will serve as a good foundation. I didn't expect the first version of my text to be seen as not being improvable, but my intention was just what happened above: to get the ball rolling and receive constructive feedback. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I see SilkTork also mentioned original research, and while I'm reticent to guess what he was referring to as it might lead to doubts on other portions of the text, I do want to ask about the first reference I made that mention the two anti-Frank websites. I'm not sure if the format is proper for one, but I also am not sure if I went too far in saying that the History section was mostly Frank articles. It is quite apparent that it is the case, but I want to make sure that's okay to put there. If something else was the OR issue, please let me know as well. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • MoS issues. Layout: images are placed on the article both in alternating style and in column style - one or the other is preferred; some images break into following sections or sub-sections; some images are of different sizes - see WP:LAYIM; due to the high number of images of various people, consideration could be given to the relevance of some of those images - see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. The lead doesn't fully summarise the complex details of the article - as a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. See: WP:Lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

General comments edit

  • What is the focus of this article? It is called Leo Frank, yet the bulk of it is about the murder of Mary Phagan. In my background reading I am seeing articles and books which have titles that are a version of "The Trial of Leo Frank" or a variation on "The Murder of Mary Phagan". The title being just Leo Frank is problematic for several reasons - we tend not to give notability to someone for one event, though we do sometimes have sub-articles on individuals when the parent article is too big. What is notable here is not Leo Frank, but the murder, trial and subsequent lynching - so it's the incident that is notable. Also by naming an article which is essentially about the trial and its aftermath after one person, the focus goes onto that individual rather than the true subject matter, which is the incident, and there is the possibility that sympathy goes to the named person - we try to remain as neutral as possible, and to try to be aware of presentation that may bias a reader. I have checked archives and there doesn't appear to have been any discussion of the title since the article was created as Leo Frank in 2003. I think it would be worthwhile if the significant contributors to the article discussed the title. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Much of the reason that the case, and not just Frank himself, is notable is because of the implications of anti-Semitism that carried on after the lynching of Frank. The effort to pardon Frank posthumously 70 years later on new evidence was spearheaded by Jewish groups, and the ADL (a Jewish civil rights organization) posted on its Facebook on the centennial earlier this month about the case. Indeed, it would be difficult to identify another murder trial 100 years after the fact that continues to be as controversial, as evidenced by the semi-protection of this article and the indefinite blocking of another user. Thus, the reason the title is Leo Frank and not "Murder of Mary Phagan" or something similar is because the case itself, and not just Frank, derives significant notability from Frank's Jewish faith and the fact that most scholarship on the case is done because of it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
So you feel the title should be something like "The trial of Leo Frank"? I would agree with that. Be good to hear some other views, given the nature of the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I would just keep it as Leo Frank. In addition to a brief introduction of his life before the murder, the article also discusses the implications following the trial and lynching, including the posthumous pardon, memorials, films based on the case, etc. that came after. I do think it's a good question you raised, and the input of others is certainly important, but that's my take. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussion would benefit from being opened up so I'll initiate a move discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

::::::There will be great opposition to renaming the article "The Trial of Leo Frank" because of the dangerous risk that it might attract references, citations and inclusions that delve into the incriminating details and testimony of the trial. Thus there is no chance of it happening. Keeping it as "Leo Frank" means that we can keep the article broadly vague and viscerally veneered, maintaining the status quo of a centenary narrative war, while at the same time keeping out inclusions in the article that tend to uncover that he was likely guilty. The article as it is tends to be biased on Frank's behalf, and keeping it that will be fought for tooth and claw. Thus as "Leo Frank" we can remove any such inconvenient details by saying "it goes against consensus", "that's not the consensus of historians" or other such stonewalls, even if backed with secondary sources. Keeping the article as "Leo Frank" keeps it safe from alternative view points on the case that go against the persecution narrative or even making it read neutral. Calling the article "Trial of Leo Frank" would set a dangerous precedent of potentially opening up a flood gate of all the evidence that has been neatly suppressed and censored for 102 years. It's for this very reason why the article name should be changed, and why the name absolutely won't be changed, ever. People would be called out of the woodwork by the gate keeper if a vote ever were to show signs of "tipping the balance". AviBoteach (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Reply

While there is a potential for skewed focus in the article being called just Leo Frank, which is why I feel it appropriate to have a discussion on the name, and for views to be aired, I would like to think that the views aired and the rationales put forward would be in the best interests of the article and the reading public, and would be helpful for the ongoing development of the article. I think the views put forward so far, including those to keep it at Leo Frank, have been based on policy and good sense and have been well argued. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Deleted on post by sock of GingerBreadHarlot as there was no reply, struck the other one. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive. Doug Weller (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here are some other comments I have:

  • Suggestion to change "Suspicion falls on Frank" to "Police investigation": Ironically, the section above it (Newspaper coverage) was called "Police investigation" until the peer review in November 2014. Nonetheless, it could be changed if others agree.
  • Aftermath section: Could be changed to different title, such as "Following the lynching" or "Impact of the Frank case".
  • Images in both alternating and column style: This was pointed out and suggested it be one or the other, but I'm not quite sure what this refers to. If another user is aware of the difference and believes it should be one or the other consistently, feel free to change this.
  • I believe Tom could make most of the changes related to the suggestion that we incorporate more of the content from the 2010 version, as he was an active editor then and would know why it changed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • In the following section, SilkTork suggests adding some content from a 2008 version of the article that had more general background, not just subsections on Frank and Phagan. It included a line on Frank's economic class and another on Frank's father, although I don't know if this would be relevant enough to add back. There was one on Judaism in Atlanta that might be useful to add, which follows with some editing and a source added: In the early 1900s, Atlanta had a large Jewish population that became highly assimilated under the leadership of Reform Rabbi David Marx.[1] If this is added, it might be prudent to add more to make a paragraph out of it, not just one line above the two subsections. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ "Rabbi David Marx". The Temple. Retrieved 5 September 2015.

On hold edit

I was not aware of this case before doing this review, and I have found it fascinating. Because of the subject matter, this is an article that generates strong opinions, and in such cases in can be difficult to write a dispassionate, neutral and balanced account of what happened. I think that those who have been working on this article are to be commended that while there has been lively debate, it has been largely calm and respectful, and the article, while experiencing changes, has not fluctuated wildly. There is an attempt to be neutral and factual, while paying respect to different opinions; however, I don't think the article is quite there yet, and some more work is required to achieve suitable neutrality. The other stumbling block to listing is the lead section, which requires development in order to be an accurate summary of the complex article. Other aspects of concern are fairly minor - a little bit of tidying up of images, etc. I'm not sure how long it will take to achieve a suitably balanced article. Experience has shown it can take a long time as there needs to be a lot of analysis and discussion, and it's the sort of thing that is best done slowly and carefully, not while there's a GA review open. However, I will keep this review open for a while longer to see what happens, and also to engage in discussion on points I have raised. I am not adverse to keeping reviews open while progress is being made - indeed I would rather list an article than fail one - so if main contributors are calmly and collaboratively working together, and significant progress is being made on the article, I will keep the review open. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking of the best way forward for this article. The more I read around the subject, and the more I look into the history of the article, the more aware I am becoming just how complex and difficult the subject is. Much detail has been added and removed over the years - this version for example, contains a lot of information on Mary Phagan (too much). However, through the changes, the basic format of the article has remained fairly constant: Background, Murder/Investigation, Trial/Appeals, Lynching, Aftermath. It might be worth considering if the structure is the most appropriate, and if so, what information should be included in each section. The "class, regional, and political interests" as well as racial, are mentioned in the lead, but in the current version of the article, not further explored in the Background section. In early versions of the article, the Background section gave more details on the background situation, [5], this over time developed into just two sub-sections on Frank and Phagan, which may be too narrow a focus. Consideration could be given to having a general background introduction to the case at the start. The campaign by the New York Times is placed in the Appeals section - I understand this, though wonder if that is the best place - should that not be part of the impact the trial had. Should the section detailing the trial's impact and influence simply be called Aftermath? It also appears that while there has been some differences of opinion here and there over the years, it is really only since the centenary of the trial with a refocus of attention and the creation of what have been identified as anti-Semitic sites that there has been a notable tension in the article regarding Frank's guilt or innocence. There is perhaps present in the article an unconscious (and understandable) attempt to argue for Frank's innocence by the use of slightly biased wording in the lead, and selection of details in the main body. Sources, such as newspapers reporting on the centenary or on books and films about the case, establish early on in their reports that the consensus of historians is that Frank was not given a fair trial and that the likely murderer was Conley. It would be appropriate to have that information early on in the lead (rather than right at the end), and that may help ease the unconscious desire to prove Frank's innocence in the presentation of details about the murder and the trial. The details of the police investigation and arrests are probably best not presented with details of the trial. Currently we have prosecution claims mixed in with police procedure. The "Suspicion falls on Frank" title would probably work better as "Police investigation" - more neutral and encyclopaedic.
Essentially, I feel it would be appropriate for a discussion to take place to look into the best structure and organisation of the article. Or perhaps, just for people to jump in and start reorganising. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
The discussions on the talkpage regarding the lead are very encouraging. Unless it is preferred than this review is closed I will keep it open while such discussions are taking place. I will check back in seven days. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes please. I will try to work on it vigorously, and the work from Tom and feedback from many others has indeed been encouraging. On your previous comment, it is in fact a quite complex case, much more so than it may seem at first glance to someone who is unfamiliar with the case, but I believe we can make a lot of progress in the next week. Thanks SilkTork for your help and patience in the matter. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
The more I learn about this case, and the more familiar I am becoming with the article, and how it has developed over the years, the more I appreciate the work that has been done. Some articles are fairly easy to get listed as a Good Article because they are are on small, easily defined, and uncontroversial topics, such as a local church. The bigger, more complex, more sensitive, and more controversial a topic, the harder it is to meet the GA requirements. Though this article is not quite ready to be listed yet, it's actually not in bad shape, and I can see that with consistent work it can be brought to meet GA criteria in a reasonable space of time. If you guys are willing to keep working at it, and progress is being made, I'm willing to keep the GAN open. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've gone through the article and have roughed out a proposed reorganization of the article. At present you can find it at User:North Shoreman/Sandbox#Reorganization of the article -- I'll add it to the article's discussion page when I get it in better shape and have tried reshuffling the existing language to see if the plan actually works. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Tom, that looks great! I appreciate all the time you put into it. I agree that changing around the basic structure of the article will help. Once you get a rough draft, I'll read through it and we can get it up before the seven-day mark (Wednesday). Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
That outline looks promising. In my brief background reading I did pick up that there were three arrests: Newt, Conley, and Frank. My understanding is that Newt was released without charge; Frank was charged with murder, tried and found guilty; and that Conley was later tried and found guilty of being an accomplice. But at the time of Frank's trial what was Conley's legal position? He was a witness at Frank's trial for murder. But was he still under arrest at the time? Had he been released without charge? Or had he been charged with being an accomplice - if so, why wasn't he tried at the same time? The more information that can be provided on these issues the more useful the article is. I am wondering, as this article is remaining at the title of Leo Frank, and that there appears to be a lot of information on the trial, as well as a lot of information on the aftermath of the trial including the various books, plays, films and TV programs, if it would he helpful to have break off sub-articles - one on the trial, and one on the aftermath, including the various media, perhaps even a more detailed one on the commutation and subsequent lynching. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
As regards the deadline, as there is some discussion regarding development I am willing to keep the review open, but I would like to start seeing some progress on the article itself. I'll pop back in seven days to see if there has been progress on the article itself, and if there hasn't, then I think we need to be thinking of closing this GAN down to allow matters to develop at a more considered pace. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks SilkTork for your additional input and patience. You do bring up some good questions about Conley in particular that are fundamental to the case and worth a mention, so we'll take that into consideration. As far as sub-articles, I'm not sure if there would be enough high-quality content to do so, but it's also worth considering, even if it's not implemented (as was the name change proposal). Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's been some promising changes to the article. I've not read through them all yet, but will do over the next few days and give some feedback. As I was running through the lead I was struck by this statement: "James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact" - that's presented as a fact. Conley was convicted of being an accomplice, however we also have statements, particularly in the Criticism of the trial and the verdict section, that Conley was the murderer. We need to be careful throughout the article that statements are not being made that appear to be factual and authoritative yet have been disputed. I asked earlier about Conley's legal position, and it would be helpful to get that. If he had been charged for being an accomplice it would be acceptable to say "Conley, who had been charged as an accomplice after the fact". That way Wikipedia is not saying he was an accomplice, merely that he was charged with being an accomplice. There is a significant difference. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The last statement in the separate section on Conley says, "On February 24, 1914, Conley was sentenced to a year in jail for being an accomplice after the fact to the murder of Mary Phagan." His trial was contested and went to a jury, although there were agreements reached between Dorsey and Conley's attorney before the trial in which only one witness would be called by the defense (a witness Dorsey wanted on record in regard to the Frank appeals and having nothing to do with Conley). So even though the conviction was based on Conley's admissions, he did technically contest the charge at trial (see Oney p. 285). Perhaps we should use your proposed sentence in the lead with a change from "charged" to "convicted? And then specifically mention that many considered him the actual killer? Something like, "Conley, who had been convicted as an accomplice after the fact and is believed by many to be the actual killer ..."? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that sounds reasonable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I will add that the next time I edit the article page if someone else doesn't do so. I spent time yesterday and today going through Oney in order to complete the sections of the trial on "Character" and "Physical evidence." This took longer than I thought it would due to the amount of detail involved (i.e. combining original witness direct, original witness cross, rebuttal witnesses direct and cross) I expect to rewrite these sections either later today or tomorrow. The rest of the new sections are much less detailed and should go faster. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Review after rewrite edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Comments on GA criteria edit

Pass
  • The language is neutral and factual, and the facts are presented in sufficient detail to indicate balance and openness. (Though some of the information can be trimmed, and I am prepared to help out with that). SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • The article topic covers a lot of territory, and the article does well in bringing in the main points. Editors could continue to discuss what points should be mentioned, and what could be left out, and consideration could be given, as I will discuss in the focus section, on sub articles to deal in greater detail with some aspects of the topic; however, I am satisfied that for GA criteria, the article does meet broad coverage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • While there is still room for improvement on the lead, I am satisfied that it does cover or at least touch on the main points of the article, and it now provides a comfortable overview of the topic such that a general reader could get an idea of what is going on. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • The article goes into close detail in places, and editorial judgements need to be made. I have trimmed down the article such that I feel that no section is so overly detailed that it will prevent this article from being listed as a GA. However, for ongoing development editors need to pay attention to the overall length of the article, and the amount of detail contained here. The general reader cannot always be expected to deal easily with a lot of detail in a single article. While there are a number of areas where detailed and nuanced explanation is helpful, consideration could be given to creating sub articles to provide the extra nuanced detail with balanced discussion on points raised, leaving behind just a summary in order to allow the general reader to get a quicker and better understanding of the bigger issues - see WP:summary style. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Query

*It appears my concerns regarding the images have been overlooked during the rewriting. I will resolve them now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Reply

Where I can I am going back to original sources and uploading the files to Commons with appropriate file information and copyright tags. Where I can't find the original source, or there is some other problem, I am removing the image from the article so the matter can be resolved later. As noted above, File:Tom E Watson.jpg doesn't have a standard summary form, and is missing essential information, such as date, so I went to the source given, but the file there does not hold relevant copyright information: [6]. I did a search for the file, and found a copy on Flickr, but it is coprighted: [7]. I have done a search on Flickr and found this file: [8], which has no copyright restrictions so can be uploaded to Commons and used. But I don't know if it is appropriate. In the meantime, I am removing the current file image of Tom E Watson from the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
The trial photo appears to be copyrighted so cannot be used, and should be removed from Wikipedia. [9]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'll look into the copyright status of these images. They should be public domain as they were published before 1923, although I'll have to verify this. It might be worth noting that the user on Flickr can simply check "copyright" without it actually being copyright, and I believe this is the case here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I found that the trial photo was taken by Walter Frank Winn of the Atlanta Journal, and a black and white version of it was published in the July 29, 1913 issue. I also confirmed my suspicion through private correspondence with the Flickr user that the image might not actually be copyright, but that person just left it tagged as copyright by default. I'm sure that other Watson image is also published before 1923, although our Tom (North Shoreman) might be able to confirm that. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks. I found it. I'll update the image page, and return it to the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

*Focus. I have a memory of asking you guys to provide a bit of context for the trial, and I can see you've worked on that. My concern now is that the Social and economic conditions section goes into a little too much detail, and also perhaps a little off topic. I will see what I can do to help focus and trim that section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Reply

I'm also a little concerned that the article has grown so much. While I did want an expansion of detail, it seems to have grown rather larger than I expected. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think the article could benefit from a tighter focus, but I am comfortable that no section is so inordinately over-detailed to prevent a GA listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

*Broad coverage. The article is much more detailed now, though as I plan to roll up my sleeves and do some content work, I think it's worth bringing in those who were arrested but not tried. Though by itself, I wouldn't fail the article for not including them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a small matter, and is editorial judgement. I'm not going to hold up a listing because of it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Fail

*The lead section still does not give an appropriate summary of the article. Some people will not have the time or inclination to read the whole article (which would take the average reader over an hour, which is beyond the average concentration span), so it is very important to provide the reader with a decent summary of the important facts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Reply

I wanted to be able to finish this today, but things keep landing on my desk in real life. I am in Oxford for the weekend, but hopefully I may have time tomorrow or at least when I get back on Monday to help out with the lead. I really want this GAR to be finished! SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

General comments edit

  • After looking into the images a bit I can see that some of them are copyright violations. I appreciate you guys have worked well on this article, but I flagged those images for concern a month ago and they are still there. I have to stop now as I have a few other things to deal with. Please check the remaining images in the article. If they don't have appropriate sources which reveal their true copyright status they need to be removed from the article. If images with uncertain copyright status remain in the article after seven days I will close this GAN as a fail. This is now a priority issue. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm working on the article today with the hope and intention of closing the GAN as a pass, so I'll be dealing with any remaining issues. While looking into the image I came across this newspaper headline: File:Leo-frank-police-have-the-strangler-headline.jpg which mentions an Arhur Mullinax. Mullinax is not in the article, though a search for Mullinax and Leo Frank throws up over 500 responses. While the GA criteria does not require the comprehensiveness of the FA criteria, it does require broad coverage of the main aspects of the topic. What a general reader would expect to find explained in the article. Mullinax does not appear to be significant, and provided all else is generally covered I wouldn't fail for not mentioning him, though it would seem appropriate to mention him in the Police investigation section - I assume he is the unnamed "friend of Phagan". I also note that a Gordon Bailey was arrested but is not mentioned. Again, it seems this is not a significant omission, though I feel the article would benefit from being a little more complete with some of these facts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Good work. The article has progressed, and we are very close to listing. The areas that need attention are a) Building the lead to give an appropriately detailed summary of the article, sufficient to provide the general reader with a satisfactory overview - this is the priority; b) Trimming some unnecessary detail; c) Including some detail on the other men arrested - this is minor, and I wouldn't quibble if it wasn't done. I think all this is quite achievable in a few days, and I'm willing to help out on the work. I would hope that the article can be listed before the end of next week. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
How helpful for the lead would reverting this edit [10] be? The deleted material directly relates to the type of evidence presented at the trial.
I did make it a point to not include the names of characters with limited impact on the overall case. For example, if you mention Mullinax, the natural questions are why was he arrested and why was he released. According to Oney he had an alibi established by his "sweetheart" and his original arrest was based on a report by "a myopic meddler [Edgar Sentell]." Mullinax admitted to knowing Phagan and having had a bit of a crush on her. There are lawyers on both sides that were added to the legal teams after the trial who I have chosen not to name. Close followers of the Frank case will notice that George Epps is not mentioned -- he was given publicity at the time but he had little impact on the actual evidence because his testimony was largely discredited. To put him in proper context would probably require a paragraph. I see right now that you're involved in trimming the details and so far every change you've made seems to me to be an improvement. Perhaps a way to add details that some readers might be looking for is to add the info to footnotes as we've done in other cases. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, adding to footnotes is a method that is used when there is additional, interesting or explanatory information that would otherwise bog down an article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Concerns by IP

This article should not receive GA status before the following issues, among others raised here are properly addressed and rectified in re GA criteria:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable? 

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

No. References appearing in the article are heavily weighted toward sources which promote the idea that Frank was "wrongfully convicted", and which themselves have been repeatedly shown to fail the test of fact-checking and accuracy. 

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary

No. The inclusion of reliable sources, especially primary sources, which support Frank's conviction have been consistently attacked, branded "unreliable", and removed from the article by pro-Frank editors in order to promote the fringe idea that he was "wrongfully convicted". 

   C. No original research

No. At least one editor has involved himself in OR by personally contacting one or more author(s) of secondary source material in order to aquire advice and information to support or bolster the fringe POV that Frank was "innocent".


4. Is it neutral? 

   Fair representation without bias

No. The article continues to be heavily biased in favor of Frank. The evidence, reasoning, and sources which support the official determination of Frank's guilt by every level of the judicial system is repeatedly and relentlessly removed, obscured, mischaracterized, or otherwise attacked throughout the article by pro-Frank editors lobbying for exclusive reliance upon pro-Frank sources who all employ a shameful obfuscation of relevant facts, as well as fabricated nonsense in order to push their common, and all too obvious agenda, which is to promote the idea of Frank's "innocence".

Although a very cleverly worded article, it is full of weasel words, and still pushes an obvious pro-Frank POV.

See [THIS] discussion, and [THIS] discussion as examples of the type of chicanery that has been present in this article for years.

See also [THIS] discussion, as well as this entry from the recent [Aborted Review] as only 2 of many relevant examples of disruptive editing and ownership behavior by one of the most fervently pro-Frank editors of this article:

Tom, you are not allowing any constructive edits. I think you are classic WP:OOA showing all the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR symptoms. The way the article currently looks is straight WP:POV due to your WP:DRNC, and I am not alone in this thinking. I took a break after your last attack. But as this article is basically being held hostage by you, I can only fail the GA nomination. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply


5. Is it stable? 

   No edit wars, etc

No. A false "consensus" has only ever been temporarily maintained as a result of the selective, and highly questionable reverting, harassment, or blocking of individual editors who attempt to include factual information and sources which tend to demonstrate the guilt of Frank, a most notable example of which appears [HERE].

This article remains "stable" only when it is "protected" by those who share an interest in preserving it merely as a vehicle to exonerate Frank. No doubt a number of editors seeking a neutral POV have become reluctant to even participate in the building of this article because the concerted efforts of various pro-Frank editors and administrators to push a pro-Frank POV have evolved to the point of lodging accusations of sockpuppetry against editors who attempt to bring the article into a state of neutrality.

Given the huge amount of properly resourced facts and evidence concerning this case that over time have been capriciously and unjustifiably removed from this article, a prime example of which may be found [HERE], and [HERE],has merely served to preserve this article as a POV whitewashing of Leo Frank. To ignore these issues renders any promotion to GA status as nothing less than ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.98.223 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Response
  • I think all concerns are worth addressing, regardless of origin, so I will respond to this. This concern appears to be mainly based on a feeling that Leo Frank was guilty, and that the article is biased toward asserting that Frank was innocent.
Firstly, it is not the business of Wikipedia to be considering or opining on Frank's innocence or otherwise. What the article should be doing is reflecting neutrally the essential facts regarding the incident, and mainstream views on the incident's impact as well as mainstream opinions on the case, including those regarding Frank's possible guilt or otherwise. I agree that occasionally the article has presented material selectively and/or awkwardly in a manner suggestive of attempting to assert Frank's innocence. And at times the language used has not been as neutral as it could be - for example Atlanta's working class saw Frank as "a defiler of young girls" while the German-Jewish community recognized him as "an exemplary man and loyal husband." The word "recognized" for the positive view compared to the neutral "saw" for the negative view, implies that Wikipedia agrees with the positive view. This has been amended so that both statements now say "saw". It is fairly common on Wikipedia that editors to articles take a personal view point, and that some of their views will creep into an article unintended, which is why it is important that as much as possible we allow all users to edit articles, and that disagreements are aired and discussed.
Secondly, it is important that, for something like a GA review, an impartial reviewer is used. I had no knowledge of this case before taking on this review, and I have no opinions either way. I welcome other views, though I have experience enough in doing GA and FA reviews that I am reasonably able to detect bias, and am sometimes approached by other editors to look into potential bias in articles. Not to say that I will spot it all, but I do look for it. The views put forward by the IP editor do indicate a bias in favour of finding Frank guilty, so such views need to be read with that in mind when considering the IP's opinion on how much the article meets GA criteria. Not to say that the IP's view should be dismissed, but that they have to be balanced against reality.
Thirdly, I have read around the subject - not just the sources provided in the article. The article does reasonably reflect mainstream views. The views I have found to assert Frank's guilt are almost exclusively those from anonymous fringe sources. Though the sources are fringe, and are anonymous, I did feel it appropriate per Wikipedia policy to include mention of these views in context. This has been done: Several websites supporting the view that Frank was guilty of murdering Phagan emerged around the centennial of the Phagan murder in 2013.[237] The Anti-Defamation League issued a press release comdemning what it called "misleading websites" from "anti-Semites...to promote anti-Jewish views".[238]
I am satisfied that the article is moving in the right direction, and that it will be fit to be listed as a Good Article once the final round of editing has been done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Mary Phagan's childhood home and place of birth. Phagan's date of birth was cited to findagrave, which is not regarded as a reliable source - Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave, so I changed it to the first book source I could find. I noticed that the place of birth in the book is given as Marietta, Georgia, though in the article we have Florence, Alabama. Researching some more I find that, yes, Florence is the true birth place, though sources give Marietta as that was her childhood home, and that is where Frank was lynched because it was Phagan's childhood home. But in the article we have the childhood home as East Point, Georgia. I'm having trouble getting a reliable source on the family moving from Florence to Marietta, but have now come upon the poorly written Murder of Little Mary Phagan which on page 14 says the family moved from Florence to Marietta. Where do we get East Point from? In our article the only time that Marietta is mentioned is for the lynching, when we say that it was Phagan's home town. But in the Mary Phagan section we say her home town was East Point. I'd like to get this cleared up please. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK. I've now got the details. Mary Phagan Kean and Steve Oney slightly disagree on the date (Oney says 1907, Kean says after 1910) the family moved to East Point, so I say in or after 1907. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply


Pass edit

This is a complex and difficult subject, and all those involved in bringing the article so far, including those who have criticised the article at various stages, are to be commended for their input and their work. I have paid particular attention to concerns of bias, and have attempted in giving advice to editors, and in working through the article myself, to make it as balanced and neutral as possible. Though we must all be aware that bias can be quite subtle, and we are all human and will sway our views and sympathies one way or another. What I feel this article should not do is try to argue one way or another that Frank was guilty or innocent. It should reflect the important facts about the case, and the discussions and differences of views afterwards. That I feel the article does quite well. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again to you, Tom, and everyone else here for your exhaustive work. I'm sure the article will continue to develop and the new content will mature a little in the coming months, but I think we can all take a deep breath now that the review is finally over. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leo_Frank/GA2&oldid=1077619197"