Wikipedia:Peer review/History of The New York Times (1945–1998)/archive1

History of The New York Times (1945–1998)

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate this for featured article and there are sourcing questions on other related articles.

Thanks, elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As requested, I'll review this article while keeping a potential featured article candidacy in mind. Before I start, I will note that the GA review was one of the most superficial I have seen; it certainly does not pass current standards, and if it had been noticed at the time, it would have been ruled invalid. I would advise you to seek input at WT:GAN, because the FAC reviewers will not accept that as a good review.

• What is the reasoning behind the start and end dates of this article? Why are four sub-articles necessary to chronicle the history of one newspaper?

• • The article reads extremely like one massive article was just cut randomly into pieces. There is no attempt to situate the reader in context. WWII is mentioned in the first four words of the lead but never once in the body.

• There seems to be extensive reliance on a couple of sources: Talese 1981 and Nagourney 2023, with entire paragraphs and even sections cited to just one source. In my mind, this is a classic sign that the article could be trimmed greatly. Most of the latter half of the article is less a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" and more a recounting of Nagourney's work.

• • The overreliance causes problems, especially when the article gets ahead of the source. A quick look at the opening paragraphs of the 1986–1992 section reveals irregularities. The article describes Frankel rejecting two people and eventually selecting Whitney. Nagourney describes Whitney advising Frankel to reject the two people and select himself. If the internal workings of a newspaper are described in such forensic detail relying on just one source, you need to be certain that you are representing it accurately.

• • There is also plain, simple close paraphrasing. "Within the week, Whitney sent thirteen letters to presidential candidates demanding their biographical, sexual, professional, and personal information." is almost word-for-word from the source.

I would highly advise a reconsideration of the sourcing, balance, and weighting of this article before any FA nomination. Perhaps even holding a procedural WP:GAR and going through WP:GAN again, with a proper review, would be beneficial. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)