Talk:Giosue Gallucci/GA3

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: DonCalo (talk · contribs) 17:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs) 01:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am going to review this article as part of the October GA backlog drive. I should be done within a week. Kimikel (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@DonCalo: I've finished my review, see below. Two main points: 1. Any time a source is directly quoted, an inline citation is needed immediately at the end of the sentence; and 2. I don't believe Gangrule meets WP:SPS criteria and should not be used as a source; HOWEVER, I don't think it will make a huge impact on the article (see my comment below). Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns with my suggestions, or if you will not be able to complete the edits in a timely manner. Thank you. Kimikel (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kimikel: Thanks for the review. Regarding the main points. 1. I did this with almost all of the direct quotes, unless it looked over-exaggerated when the source was already referenced multiple times in the same paragraph. Regarding 2, since the previous GA reviews, Gangrule has been updated and reliable sources have been added to that site. The article on their site is now very well referenced. Even better than some of the books that are used as reliable sources. In addition, due to the frequent misspelling of Italian names in the newspaper sources at the time, the Gangrule article is some times essential to connect the dots. That said, in preparation to this GA review, I updated almost every reference to Gangrule with an additional reference to another reliable source. Which convinced me that Gangrule is reliable and can be used on its own as well. Moreover, since the well-researched Gangrule article is available online it seems odd not to mention it here on wikipedia. - DonCalo (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@DonCalo: Thank you for the edits you've made thus far. Regarding Gangrule, I agree that it is a well-made website and that it contains a lot of useful information; the problem I have with is that it is a self-published source, which according to WP:SPS, are "largely not acceptable as sources". It makes an expert for subject matter experts who have previously published work in the field with "reliable, independent" publishers. Jon Black does have a book published according to his website; however, it doesn't really seem like the publisher meets those criteria. Unless he has work published somewhere else that meets the previous criteria, it would be best to exclude it from the article. Kimikel (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kimikel: Thanks for your considerations. On the use of self-published sources, I generally agree in 99 per cent of cases, but there are always exceptions to the general rule. That applies to Gangrule. Its author, Jon Black, is a respected researcher who has collaborated on David Critchley's academic book, The Origin of Organised Crime in America, among others (as acknowledged in the book). Early versions of Gangrule were based on that book, but Black has done further research. For this article, I have checked Black's sources as far as possible and they turn out to be reliable (I also provided those sources in the article). Hence, I think an exception to WP:SPS is in order here. - DonCalo (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@DonCalo: I think that argument's fair enough; since his work was used for a formally published book, I won't fight you anymore on that topic. I'll do a final read over of the article soon, and after that it should be good to go. Kimikel (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kimikel: Thanks for you understanding. I was not aware we had a fight. I rather think it was a civil discussion on the merits of the article and its sources. - DonCalo (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@DonCalo: "Fight" was probably the wrong word; I'm glad that we were able to discuss and come to a positive conclusion. I appreciate all the work you've done on this article and I'm ready to close it out as a pass. Thank you, and congratulations on the good article! Kimikel (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

Early life

• "a Naples Court" > a Naples court  Done
• "Rumour had it" > It was rumoured that  Done

Dominance

• ""grand drawing."" > "grand drawing".  Done
• "was only one prize, $1,000, but the one who won" > was only one prize of $1,000, and the winner of  Done with a minor adaptation: was only one prize of $1,000, but the winner of
• "While he paraded through Harlem swinging a loaded cane, he was always immaculately dressed in tailored suits with a magnificently waxed mustache, an expensive $2,000 diamond ring and $3,000 diamond shirt studs." > This sentence is not very encyclopedic. Something like "He was often seen in Harlem with a loaded cane, wearing tailored suits, a $2,000 diamond ring, and a $3,000 diamond shirt studs."  Done I changed it into: He was often seen in Harlem swinging a loaded cane, immaculately dressed in tailored suits with a magnificently waxed mustache, an expensive $2,000 diamond ring and $3,000 diamond shirt studs.
• "He denied the allegations." > this sentence is too vague to stand by itself, either elaborate or combine it with the next sentence.  Done I elaborated: "He denied the allegations that he was involved in criminal activities."

Political influence

• "Under these circumstances Gallucci could easily deny the charges against him" > this whole paragraph is pretty must just a single quote from Gallucci anyway, you might as well make it another block quote  Not done It is not really a single quote. I think it is fine like this.

Death of brother

• "Aniello Prisco – nicknamed "Zopo the Gimp",[35] a gangster from Harlem – for" > Aniello Prisco, a gangster from Harlem nicknamed "Zopo the Gimp", for  Done

Fighting over underworld control

• "the brothers Fortunato" > brothers Fortunato  Not done are you sure? I don't see the improvement here.
• "some press reports were" > some press reports, were  Done

Murder

• "In an effort to defend him" > While trying to defend Gallucci,  Done
• "coffee shop and some" > coffee shop, and some  Done
• "22 carriages for" > 22 of which carried  Done
• "when the hearse after had" > after the hearse had  Done
• "settle the case himself" > settle the issue himself  Done

Burial

• "Calvary Cemetery (Queens)" > Cavalry Cemetery in Queens  Done
• "view the remains" > view his body  Done
• "Gallucci's last journey" > Gallucci's funeral procession  Done
• "23-strong" > 23-man  Done
• "wrote the Herald" > change to "The Herald wrote that" and move to front of sentence  Done
• "The lucrative numbers rackets left behind by Gallucci became free for the taking" > Gallucci's lucrative numbers rackets were left unclaimed  Done
• "took over control" > took control  Done

Footnotes

• "An 1862 Naples police report identified another man named Giosuè Gallucci and Giuseppe as camorristi − Italian for a members of the Camorra −, but it is unknown if these were relatives" > An 1862 Naples police report identified brothers Giosuè and Giuseppe Gallucci as members of the Camorra, but it is unknown if they were relatives of Gallucci's.  Done
• Remove second footnote  Not done I put it in footnote instead of a trivia section; it is not really important, but a lot of people know more about The Godfather movie than Italian crime history in NY, so I thought that it was a nice gesture.

Verifiable

• I agree with the prior reviews; Gangrule does not seem to meet WP:SPS guidelines. I don't think it should be used in the article. HOWEVER, I also don't think that's grounds for failure. Gangrule does cite well; try to see if you can replace Gangrule with some of its sources. If not, just remove the information you can't substantiate without Gangrule.

Since the previous GA reviews, Gangrule has been updated and reliable sources have been added to that site. The article on their site is now very well referenced. Even better than some of the books that are used as reliable sources. In addition, due to the frequent misspelling of Italian names in the newspaper sources at the time, the Gangrule article is some times essential to connect the dots. That said, in preparation to this GA review, I updated almost every reference to Gangrule with an additional reference to another reliable source. Which convinced me that Gangrule is reliable and can be used on its own as well. Moreover, since the well-researched Gangrule article is available online it seems odd not to mention it here on wikipedia. - DonCalo (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Inselma was murdered with "her throat cut from ear to ear" in her apartment at 108 Mulberry Street within a block of the infamous Mulberry Bend." > needs citation after period due to quote  Done
• " "a young grocer and expressman, with a store at 172 Mott Street"" > also needs citation  Done
• ""bad character" and "a dangerous criminal, belonging to the category of blackmailers"" > both need citations at the end of that sentence at the lastest  Done
• ""rascals" from Naples and Sicily who had made New York City their home." > needs a citation  Done
• ""as a class, they rob their own people, and the Italian scheme of 'fix it myself' interferes to throw the police off the scent." " > needs citation  Done
• "Gallucci complained a week before he was killed." >needs citation  Not done The source is already mentioned four times in that paragraph. I think it is clear.
• "certainly the most powerful Italian politically in the city, and during campaigns was exceptionally active." . > cite  Done
• "he would either be assaulted, receive blackmail letters or be killed." "> cite  Done
• ""secret society similar to the Mafia"" > cite  Done

Spot check

1. 29: Citation should be done the same way as the rest so that it links to your sources  Done Well, kind of, the reference does not link to the source. I don't know how to fix that. - DonCalo (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
2. 56: It's only implied that the pair were the Galluccis, and this is a primary source document posted on a website somewhere; I'd say it'd be better to remove this entirely.  Not done According to the editor: "The father-son murders appear to be a reference to Giosue and Luca Gallucci." I think this is sufficient ground to keep it. - DonCalo (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
3. 45: Verified
4. 16 Verified
5. 11: Verified

Broad

• Broad in its coverage

Neutral

• Neutral

Images

• No issues, all published before 1929

Stable

• Stable

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.