Talk:Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 17:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this article, as part of the GA Recruitment Centre, so this review may have more explanation than normal. [1] As per my practice, I fill out the template first and then do a prose and source review afterwards. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Needs a lot of work, but not anything impossible to overcome.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   There are weaknesses in the prose, which could use some tightening. See below for prose review.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   As per WP:TRIV, "In popular culture" sections should be avoided. Please read the guideline. The section is very short here, so you should easily be able to fold the list into other sections. For example, you could put the Guinness World Records info at the very beginning of the article, almost like an introduction.

 Done Moved record and removed others as not relevant -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Make sure that the dates are consistent in the ref section. WP practice is that you follow the dd-mm-yyyy format.

 Done Fixed all reference dates. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

1. B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   I've only looked at a few refs thus far, and found some serious issues. See source review below, where I'll go into more detail.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   At first glance, looks fine. I reserve the right to change my mind, though; I often find comprehensiveness issues as I get further into the source review.

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable, with one main editor.

5. 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:

   Nice, good job at illustrating subject.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Needs work, especially with prose and references. See below.

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Prose review

I tend to be thorough in my prose review. As per my practice, I go through each section and put the sentences I discuss in italics, and my suggestions in quotes.

Lead

• The lead is long enough, but as per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview", which it doesn't do currently. I suggest that you add a few sentences, about the history (and name origin), the escapes, and its history as a juvenile detention.

• ? Maybe. Added more prose to make the lead stand alone, but might need more work -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I like to work on the lead last, so we'll come back to it. Currently, though, your additions do a better job at summarizing the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

History

• The main issue with this section is that it isn't chronological enough. I think that you should switch the paragraphs, and discuss the background of N.Y. using barges to solve its inmate crisis in the late 80s and early 90s. You talk more about the Bain's predecessors' history--where they came from and why they were re-purposed than you do about the Bain herself.

•  Done reworked article to make more chronological -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I re-worded the first paragraph a bit; if you disagree, let's talk about it. (Sometimes I'm WP:BOLD in my reviews, and just copy-edit if it's easier, which I figured would be in this case.)

Looks good to me! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• It was opened in 1992 and was named for Vernon C. Bain, a warden who died in a car accident. Even though you have a lead/introduction, an article doesn't really begin until the first sentence of the first section, so you should reintroduce the subject. You should also avoid starting a sentence with "it", since the subject is unclear. How about: "The Vernon C. Bain was opened in 1992 and was named for a warden who died in a car accident." Is there any more information about the accident, and why Bain was important enough to have a prison named for him?

•  Done Sentence reworded. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• ? Answer: All of the sources say that the ship was named for Vernon C. Bain and that he was a "well-liked," "respected," or "popular" warden who died in a tragic automobile accident. I cannot find anymore information. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that it would be okay to include that he was thought of in those ways, to explain why he'd have a prison named for him. Use at least two of the adjectives, but it's also okay to include all three, with the appropriate sources, of course. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done I included well-liked and respected because I do not understand how a warden would be popular, or who he is popular with (citizen? DoC? NYC gov? the mayor? prisoners?) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any more information about Brown and Diaz? What happened to them, and why were they in the same accident as Bain? Actually, is mentioning them important enough to include here?

•  Done Removed their names as there is no notability to mentioning them. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "It has been used by the city of New York as a prison, but has also temporarily held juvenile inmates." I don't think you need this sentence, since you talk about these things later on, so I think you could omit it.

•  Done Removed sentence. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• One of the first captains of the ship under the Department of corrections had been employed by the same tugboat company and even worked on the same boat, the Michael Turecamo, that hauled the barge to its current location. There's not enough information here. I think that you should describe the process of the Bain going from being a barge to a prison. The Klumpp source goes into a lot of detail about it, so I think you should follow what he says and re-create it here.

•  Done Major section rewrite, reorganization, explanation, etc. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. I think that this sentence could be clarified: One of the first captains of the ship under the Department of Corrections, had previously been employed by the same tugboat company and actual tugboat that hauled the barge to its current location. Are you talking about two tugboat companies? If you are, you could simply say, "...had previously been employed for the same tugboat company that had hauled..."

 Done changed to "previously been employed by the same tugboat company and had earlier captained the tugboat that hauled the barge" for clarification. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• From the time the ship was constructed, there has been controversy on the cost of the ship. Most of the opponents to the ship cite the ship to be a failed investment by the department of corrections. At some point in the prison's use it was temporarily closed prior to 1996. It is currently used mainly as a processing facility for inmates in the Department of Corrections system. What was the nature of the controversy? Who were the opponents, and why were they against it? You need to capitalize "department of corrections". Why was it closed prior to 1996, and why did it re-open, and when? What was the process of the Bain going from a prison to a processing facility?

•  Done Another major rewrite within the history section. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• If you switch around the paragraphs in this section, start with the inmate crisis, and how N.Y. tried to solve it with the two Bibby ships before trying the Bain. Then you can move into the Bibbys closing in 1992, and move into how the Bain and the other ship were a continuation of the attempted solution. Then when you actually start talking about the Bain in paragraph 2, you can talk about if the Bain was successful and how the DoC's critics didn't think that it was. What was the other ship mentioned in this paragraph? If you can't find its name in the sources, you can't include it, of course.

•  Done Complete rewrite over multiple edits. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• ? Answer: The two other ships I have not found names for. The NYC DOC does not list them in their facilities, therefore they are probably not currently used. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I found some names! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I like your re-writes and additions. Again, I did some copy-editing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

More later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Facilities

• Due to the 47,326-ton facility being on the water, when it opened a minimum of three maritime crew was maintained under Coast Guard regulations. Although it's technically grammatically correct, I think it's best, in encyclopedic writing, to avoid starting sentences with an adjective. I suggest this: "The 47,326-ton facility was on the water, so when it opened, a minimum of three maritime crew was maintained under Coast Guard regulations."

•  Done Updated with good recommendation -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• After ten years of the United States Coast Guard requiring maritime personnel on the ship, the Coast Guard ceased interest in the operation of the jail in 2002. Do the sources state the reason for this?

• ? Answer: The only information that I can find in the source is "The Coast Guard, after years of monitoring the prison barge, finally accepted the reality that that it was, de facto, a jail and not a boat." (from Klumpp, John S. (2011). An Ordinary Guy: an Extraordinary Tale: My Life and times. iUniverse. pp. 293–302.) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you could say that: "According to [name], the barge's first captain, "the Coast Guard, after years of monitoring the prison barge, finally accepted the reality that that it was, de facto, a jail and not a boat."

 Done Rewrite including attribution. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Escapes

• One of the earliest attempts at escape from then center happened in 1993, when a 38 year old prisoner slipped away while he was supposed to be cleaning ice from the parking lot of the ship. Is "then" a typo? The wording is a little awkward here. If it was the first time, I suggest that you say it, if it's true. "Attempts at escape" is vague, and "slipped away" is unencyclopedic. Does a ship have a parking lot? How about: "The first time a prisoner tried to escape from the Bain happened in 1993, when a 38 year-old prisoner was able to escape while he was supposed to be cleaning ice from the parking lot in front of the ship." Do we know what happened to this prisoner? I see that the source doesn't say (although it says that the guard responsible for him was suspended), but that might be something to find out, if possible.

•  Done Changed sentence to better suggestion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• ? Answer: After searching the archives of the NYTimes, the NY Daily news, and Jet magazine, I have found nothing about whether he got away or not. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Prior to 2002, a disgruntled inmate attempted to escape from the recreation area by climbing the 30-foot fence equipped with razor wire. Due to the corrections officers' uniform boots, they were unable to climb the fence in pursuit. Instead they used basketballs ineffectively in an attempt to disengage the fleeing inmate. The inmate successfully overtook the fence and dove into the East River where he was promptly picked up and returned by a police watercraft that was dispatched to the scene. What do you mean by "prior to 2002"? Please be more specific, if you can. I would think that all inmates are "disgruntled"; they've lost their freedom, doncha know. What do you mean by that? Again with the "due to". And do you mean that the guards actually threw basketballs at him to try to stop him? I'm not sure what you mean by "an attempt to disengage the fleeing inmate". I think that you could just state that he was able to make it over the fence into the East River.

•  Done Rewrote section on basketballs, etc. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• ? Answer: Prior to 2002 or in the first ten years of the ship are the best dates I can find via that and other sources. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Here's what I'd do with these sentences, if my assumptions are correct: "In [year], an inmate tried to escape from the prison's recreation area by climbing the 30-foot fence equipped with razor wire. The guards' uniform boots prevented them from climbing the fence in pursuit, so they threw basketballs at the inmate to stop his escape, but he was able to successfully climb over it. He dove into the East River, where he was promptly picked up and returned by a police watercraft that was dispatched to the scene."

•  Done Updated except year, per above. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another escape occurred in February 2004 when the girlfriend of an inmate gave a handcuff key to him in the center. I don't think you need "another escape"; you could use start the sentence with "In February 2004..." How in the heck did she get the key? And what do you mean by "in the center"? In the prison, or a part of it?

•  Done removed in the center, irrelevant. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• ? Answer: None of the sources say how she got the key, just that she gave it to him. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• At one point the inmate was handcuffed, by one wrist, to another inmate. Without the notice of any employee, he was able to remove the cuffs to free himself. This could be a little clearer. How about: "The inmate was handcuffed by one wrist to another inmate, but he was able to, without any prison employee noticing, remove the cuffs and free himself."

•  Done Sentence changed to better word -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• The inmate was able to cling to the undercarriage of a prisoner transport bus to ride away from the facility. He let go of the bus in South Bronx and walked away. The inmate was apprehended nearly a month later and six officers and a captain were given administrative leave due to the incident. I think that the third sentence should be separated, since they're different thoughts. If you do that, you should combine the first phrase with the previous sentence, like this: "He let go of the bus in the South Bronx and walked away, but was apprehended nearly a month later." And then start the next sentence with "Six officers and a captain..."

•  Done Merged, then split sentences. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• The corrections commissioner said the escape happened due to human error as "correction officers are required to check under buses before departing." Quote needs a ref. I think you could quote the source even more directly, and say that it was caused by a combination of the inmate's quick thinking and the officers' sloppy work. I have more to say about how you present this information, but it better fits in my source review below.

•  Done Better sentence. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• How did the early 2013 escapee slip out of his handcuffs? I don't know what you mean by "at the center". And did he ever get caught? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Clarification of the center -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• ? Answer: I cannot find any evidence where he was caught. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll look at the last paragraph, and then start on my source review tomorrow. Sorry things have been so slow; things have been a little busy around here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Juvenile detention

• At the time, there were over five thousand children thirteen years or older in secure detention in New York. I'm sure you mean children between the ages of 13 and 18, but I think you should state that to ensure that there's no misunderstanding about what group you're talking about. I don't know if it's just me, but calling this group "children" feels strange to me. I know that in the juvenile justice system, they're called "juveniles"; perhaps you should use it.

•  Done Updated.] Good call. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• The barge had been unused since August 1995 and was ready to house inmates again. This is a little unclear. Was the center renovated to hold juveniles? If not, I think you could omit that part of the sentence.

•  Done Clarified. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• To solve the space problem and to assist in the closure of Spofford Juvenile Center, the space was used for inmate processing and temporary housing for inmates from prior to transfer. Again, I don't like starting sentences with a preposition. Were juveniles processed and temporarily housed in the center? Please clarify. And is there a word missing after "from"?

•  Done Clarified juvenile use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• First, you say that the dept. moved out of the center in 1999, and then you say that the juveniles moved out in 2000. Does that mean that the juveniles weren't overseen during this time?

•  Done I fixed my mistakes of having the dates backwards, checked via sources. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think you could omit the last sentence, since you already say that the dept. leased space in the center. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Removed duplicate information. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions

First, thank you for taking on this monstrous review. I was obviously very far off in how close I thought it was to being a Good Article. Now I know how wrong I was. Second, I have a few general questions about the article if you don't mind.

• ? Should the article be arranged differently? I think it would be more chronological and logical to be ordered: Lead, History, Juvenile detention, Escapes, and Facility. Thoughts?
• ? What are your thoughts on the External links section? Are the two links appropriate per WP:EL? Would adding the official website of the NYC Dept. of Corrections be acceptable?

Thanks again for your continued work on this review. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved things around because we had an edit conflict, which happens. Personally, I prefer being as close to an article fulfilling the criteria as possible before even submitting an article. When I was a less experienced editor, I would get them reviewed, either at WP:GOCE or WP:PR, but eventually, I become so familiar with the review process that I knew what to do. It's a personal victory when I can get an article passed with very little difficulty (and at FAC, with only one nomination as opposed to the four times it took to pass my first FAC). To be honest, as a GA reviewer, I kind of resent editors who use the review process to get a copy-edit, since there are other avenues here to do that. I don't mind a major review, especially with you, since we're using it for educational purposes, but I recommend you bring your article further along the next time you submit one to GAC.

I think the arrangement is fine for GA, but I think moving it around as you suggest is a good idea, and would make for a better article. Re: the External links section: I don't see the need to include the "official history" link; perhaps a better choice would be the NYCDoC website. I like the second link, since it provides images that we can't include here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks for your responses! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review

I also tend to be somewhat thorough in my source review, depending upon the situation. Sometimes, also depending on the situation and on the article, I do the source and prose review at the same time, since sometimes they go well together. Other times, I separate the reviews, when I feel it's necessary. Obviously, in this case I feel like I need to separate them, and I think the reason will be made clear. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 1, 3, ect.: I know that other editors do so, but I don't tend to include a link that brings you to the Google or Amazon book site. I mean, it doesn't provide access anyway. I don't even provide the link if, like in the case of ref 2, it lets you look inside, since you still often don't have access, anyway. There's no policy against it, though, so perhaps it's a style difference.

• ? Would it be okay for the purposes of this review if I left them? Honestly, all of the information in this article was obtained through the previews of these books. I don't actually own any of these books, nor could I find them in my local library (I'm only about 3000 miles from NYC in a town the population of 1600). I'm happy to copy them over to my sandbox for holding if you prefer them otherwise. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just expressing my preference; like I said, I know that other editors do it, and that there's no policy against it, so it's up to you. I'm lucky in that even though I too live in a small town, I work for one of the two local universities, so I get library access. There are resources for those who aren't so lucky, though: see WP:TWL, especially the "Research Resources" section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for WP:TWL, I will definitely look into it. I previously worked for a small private college with access to research, but alas, now I work in K-12 public education. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 3a: The source doesn't connect the practice of using barges to reduce prison overcrowding with a "David Dinkins-led crime initiative". Instead, it says that Dinkins kept the public safety budget constant and increased social services (p. 226) and that the homicide rate in NY had decreased during his tenure (p. 253). This concerns me a bit, but perhaps it's the only time this happens.

•  Done Removed. Thank you for bringing up this point. I did not write all of the content of this article, and personally I don't like the part about David Dinkins. No source really connects him to anything as the planning for the ship was done under a different mayor. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 6: Wow, I was just told to do this exact thing in my most recent FAC [2] (Scroll down to Quadell's comments.) I will tell you to do what I just had to do: each of the statement supported by ref 6 need to be more specific. For example, the statements supported by ref 6a and ref 6b are on p. 292 in the source, and the statement supported by ref 6b is on p. 297. Please go through and connect the sources better to this source.

• ? Okay this one scares me. This is territory I am not familiar with. In your blues clues article you have citations separate and a sub-section of bibliography. Should I put all of my sources that are on the same pages in the citations section and all of the multi-page sources in the bibliography with the author's last name and page number in the citations? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm being clear. Perhaps the only way I can explain what I mean is to just demonstrate it. Would it be okay if I did that? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

?Please do! I would love the assistance. Obviously I'm not normally a content editor, I like to do more technical stuff, so if you can teach me something new, that would be great! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Okey dokey smokey, as my uncle used ta say. I went ahead and did what I was talking about. Notice that since the Klumpp book is referred to several times, I created a "Works cited" section and put it there. There are other ways to do this; this is the way I prefer. I also prefer a Works cited section as opposed to naming it "Bibliography" because a bibliography can include books and sources not specifically mentioned in the article. Hopefully, what I was trying to say before is more clear now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Gotta stop here. Will return tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 16: What does this source support? There's nothing in it about Booth's statement. I suppose you could say that Mcdermott is opposed to the practice of using prison barges, and considers it a failure, but he never comes out and says it. There are other things you could add from it. The last full paragraph on p. 103 is useful, since it states the Bain's cost and address, but you have other better sources to support it. You could also quote Mcdermott as considering it "recycling" and a cost-saving measure; that's interesting. I'd be careful about using this source, though; it's obviously self-published. (Plus, it engages in my own personal grammar pet-peeve, which I always catch: using "it's" instead of "its" at the bottom of p. 103.) Now, using self-published sources isn't always to be avoided, but it's a good thing to treat them with care. When I use a source like this (like the Tracy book in Blue's Clues), I put a note stating the history of the source, which you'll have to find out if you decide to go ahead and use it. Perhaps all you need to say is that the book was written by an inmate.

•  Done put correct source, and removed source that has no actual content. Good catch! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The other sources look fine. I'll WP:AGF regarding the inaccessible sources, which is something I often do in these cases. I don't usually go into so much detail in my source reviews, but I did this time because we're using it for the GA Recruitment Centre. Often, I again AGF and spot-check a few sources, unless there are issues. When you resolve the two issues about the sources, I can pass this article to GA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that this article looks good now, and fulfills the GA criteria. I'll go pass this now. Congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)