Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jamie Kalven/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2024 [1].

Jamie Kalven[edit]

Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Kalven never intended to be known as a "guerrilla journalist" in Chicago. He was initially planning to become a foreign correspondent in Asia, but the sudden death of his father, a legal scholar at the University of Chicago, set him on a path towards writing about freedom of speech, public housing, and civil liberties issues. His reporting helped uncover police misconduct surrounding the murder of Laquan McDonald by an officer, and he founded a non-profit that has catalogued nearly 250,000 other allegations against police officers. One of his lawsuits, Kalven v. City of Chicago, became a landmark decision involving the public records statute in Illinois. Edge3 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk[edit]

Reviewed this at GA after seeing it at DYK and was impressed by the quality! Happy to see it at FAC! Some comments:

  • Something I notice is that many sentences begin with "He", in reference to Kalven. This repetitiveness reads oddly- perhaps reorder the sentence to put the pronoun later, or use other names, like "the young journalist"
    I tried fixing this with this edit, but please let me know if there are other revisions that you had in mind. Edge3 (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • which led him to give up serious mountaineering - don't think serious is needed here
    Removed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • spent the following 14 years working on his father's manuscript, which was eventually completed and published in 1988 as A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America.[2][4] He had reviewed annotations - here, is "he" Jamie or his father? Both are mentioned in the previous sentence
    Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • described Jamie's work as "an extraordinary act of intellectual and filial devotion." - period outside quote mark, per WP:LQ
    Moved the period. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1988, he was teaching - new para, use his name instead of a pronoun
    Fixed, and I used his first name instead of last name. It should be clear based on context which Kalven we're talking about, but given that Harry was mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I think it's good to be extra clear. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a label that Kalven likes. - "concurs with" may be more formal than "likes"
    Changed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the team grew into an association of collaborators working on race and poverty issues in Chicago, including civil rights attorneys and law students at the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, a legal clinic at the University of Chicago Law School - the last comma is confusing me, is mentioning the name of the clinic important? IMO it's fine to just say "including civil rights attorneys and law students at the University of Chicago Law School". If you do make this change, make sure to cut future mentions of the Clinic
    I'm reluctant to avoid mentioning the clinic because a legal clinic is a specific program at a law school that is less academic and more practical in nature. The phrase "civil rights attorneys and law students at the University of Chicago Law School" would imply that this was more of an academic, classroom-based exercise. In any case, the "civil rights attorneys" might not even be part of the academic faculty at the school. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough then MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of discovery in Bond's case, Futterman requested - because this starts a new section, it's probably worth clarifying who Futterman is
    Clarified. Do you think I also need to clarify who Bond is? Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bond is clearly defined in the previous paragraphs, while Futterman gets one sentence- I think this makes sense, but I don't believe Bond needs to be clarified. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the court decision, Invisible Institute - whether "Invisible Institute" is preceded by an article is consistent: the header uses an article, but some of the text doesn't
    Fixed. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The data project houses complaints and allegations made against officers, the number of sustained complaints, and individual officer profiles that list officer salaries and discipline they received for use-of-force incidents. The data is from 1988 to 2018. - merge these two sentences, perhaps: "...and discipline they received for use-of-force incidents, ranging from 1988 to 2018."
    I deviated slightly from your recommendation to clarify that the "from 1988 to 2018" range applies to the data project as a whole, not just the use-of-force incident disciplinary reports. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official story initially suggested - who wrote the "official" story? The police department? The city govt?
    Mainly the police department. I've added that clarification. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got nothing else- these are all minor concerns, as the bigger ones were addressed at the GAN. Excellent work- happy to see an important journalist make it to the mainpage someday! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, both on the GAN and also on this FAC! I've addressed most of your comments and hope to get to the remaining one shortly. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not sure which remaining one you mean, everything I commented about has been fixed. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I replied over two separate edits. Thanks for your support, and your generous feedback as always! Edge3 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
    I've added alt text. Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is sandwiching between images and the secondary infobox - why is that here? Suggest removal
    Where do you see sandwiching? Everything looks fine on my screen. Also, what are you suggesting be removed? Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second infobox - why is it there? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kalven v. City of Chicago is a landmark court decision interpreting the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. The case has notability independent of Kalven as a person, but I'm just covering both topics in the same article for efficiency. Court cases typically get their own infoboxes in their respective articles, to cover key aspects of the decision such as the lower courts being appealed from, the judges sitting, and the authors of the appellate opinion(s).
    I'm happy to reconsider my position on this. Do you think certain information can be trimmed to make the infobox shorter? Or would you rather remove the infobox entirely? Edge3 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the case has notability independent of this subject, I'm of the opinion it should have an independent article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider a separate article, but felt that there would be so much overlap with Kalven's biography that the writing would be duplicative. The genesis of the lawsuit was Kalven's reporting at Stateway. An article on the court decision would not be complete without a summary of his journalism. Similarly, the court decision led directly to the expansion of the Invisible Institute, so an article on the case would not be complete without covering the Institute's accomplishments.
    It seemed to me that Kalven, Kalven v. City of Chicago, and the Institute are three distinct topics that have independent notability, but are best addressed in one article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Since all topics can be adequately covered in Kalven's biography, I kept it as one article. Edge3 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But while there is overlap, they are really different topics, and an article about the case could mention the other two without the same level of detail that would be appropriate for articles on them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, and I'm happy to consider splitting Kalven v. City of Chicago into a separate article. I'm going to ping @MyCatIsAChonk, who reviewed at GAN, and @Cielquiparle and @AirshipJungleman29, who reviewed at DYK, in case they have any thoughts. I'm probably too close to this article to make a sound decision, so I'd rather make sure there's agreement to create a separate article for the court case before I do anything. Edge3 (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it makes sense to have the court case part of this article, as it a) is an essential point in Kalven's career and b) entirely surrounds his efforts to get the police department's records. Kalven v. City of Chicago is not a very complex case, and splitting it would result in a rather short article. Even if it was split, much of the current prose under "Obtaining police misconduct records" would remain, as there's a lot of context needed to understand Kalven's involvement in this case. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Laquan_McDonald_autopsy.jpg: why is this believed to be ineligible for copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is ineligible for copyright per Commons:Threshold of originality. Blank forms are not copyrightable under section 313.4(G) of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Additionally, the medical examiner's notations are merely representations of factual information under section 313.3(C) and do not rise above the level of de minimis authorship under section 313.4(B). Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Just wanted to see if you had thoughts on my responses above? Edge3 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Do you still have any concerns regarding what we've discussed above? Edge3 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have any concerns about the image license; I'm still of the opinion that the case would be best split but am not opposing over that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

Why are 5 citations required to support his approximate dob in the first line of the lead? Normally citations are avoided in the lead as the information should be contained in the body of the article. I suggest you begin the "Personal life and early career" with his birth. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved those citations to the personal life section. Edge3 (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TonyTheTiger[edit]

I have added a bunch of projects to the talk page. I see that you have not directly informed projects of this discussion. Although a lot of projects have automated processes, sometimes people are only following the project talk.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged a few of the WikiProjects as per your suggestion. Edge3 (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term well-published is a vague term. Can you document notable media outlets that he has published through.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any info on which media outlets he worked for in his mid-20s. I've removed the "well-published" term. Edge3 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines, can you mention who published the book in 1988 since they are a major publisher.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't explicitly mention Harper & Row as the publisher of A Worthy Tradition, so I'm reluctant to include it in the prose of the article. The publisher is named in the "Works" section. Edge3 (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the publisher is named in the works section, is there a chance that they were not the publisher? Some times WP:PRIMARY is allowed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review of the sources, I'm not so sure who is the publisher. The Greenhouse source suggests that Harry Kalven had submitted the manuscript to the University of Chicago Press, but Harper and Row is still listed as a publisher in various primary sources. Edge3 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know , it would not be uncommon for a publisher to reject a manuscript and another to publish it. If it is currently available for sale, it probably has an ISBN number and publisher in the public domain (especially places like Amazon). Whatever those are they are.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the name of the publisher Edge3 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the names of the student consultants. Have any of them become notable people worth mentioning?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of the students were explicitly mentioned as consultants who helped with the manuscript. Edge3 (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the assault, I am left wondering if the case went unsolved or if any arrests were made.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find any info on the perpetrators, but I did find this article about Kalven's activism following the rape of his wife. I thought it was very informative so I've expanded the article accordingly. Edge3 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Turkel be described as a Chicago Journalist rather than just a Journalist to clarify the connection.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and note that Turkel is now mentioned twice in the article. Let me know if you think I've phrased it correctly. Edge3 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2nd time you don't need to repeat that he is a Chicago journalist.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I wasn't sure. I've removed it. Edge3 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the outcome of Bond v. Utreras?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bond's lawsuit settled out of court for $150,000. As for the appellate case, in which Kalven was seeking to intervene, the federal appeals court ruled that Kalven lacked standing and that he could still try to get the records he wanted under Illinois state law. Edge3 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just seeing this in the later section.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the court decision-->After the 2014 court decision or After the March 2014 court decision-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added '2014'. Edge3 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also break up that sentence making the 2017 content separate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to recall the public sentiment regarding the Laquan McDonald case. Was there broad public interest in the release of the video or am I misremembering this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kalven and Futterman called for the release of the dashcam recording, but I'm not sure if there was broad public interest. In most FOIA cases, the public typically doesn't realize the importance of the record until it is actually released. Edge3 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any link between the publicity for this case and the city's preference for a subsequent mayor who had served on the Chicago Police Accountability Task Force?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightfoot is mentioned only once in the Murder of Laquan McDonald article, so I don't believe her subsequent election was linked to the murder. Edge3 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The depth of research surpasses any expectation I could have imagined.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @TonyTheTiger! I'm flattered by your compliments. Edge3 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Source #14 can probably get a link. I don't know much about the news media cited here so I'll need to AGF for the most part. Completeness-wise, does this guy have a family? How does ""They Have All the Power": Youth/Police Encounters on Chicago's South Side" relate to Kalven? Source formatting seems consistent for the most part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is available via the ABA journal website, but I did not personally use that link because it's paywalled. The citation states that I used Business Source Complete, which I accessed through a university subscription.
As for "They Have All the Power", Kalven co-authored that book. The "——" is a placeholder for his name. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Are you satisfied with my response above? Edge3 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with the caveat about unfamiliarity and the lack of a spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo. You say "Spot-check upon request." As this is a first time FAC it needs one. Any chance that you could do it? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go, from this version

  • 1 Where does it say "Asia" or "communities"? I notice that the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the source. Also, not a source thing necessarily, but why does the article sometimes say "Kalven" and sometimes "Jamie"?
    "Asia" was covered by citation 3, and I've adjusted accordingly. The term "communities" is cited to citation 1, which states immersing himself in Chicago communities experiencing poverty, over-policing and violence. (Emphasis added.) I have modified the sentence structure to avoid close paraphrasing. Lastly, the article uses "Jamie" when "Kalven" would result in confusion with his father. See MOS:SAMESURNAME. All of these edits are addressed in this change. Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 OK
  • 4 OK
  • 5 OK
  • 6 Where does it say "alumnus"?
    Harry Kalven is mentioned in the UChicago Magazine as "Harry Kalven Jr., AB’35, JD’38". The last part indicates that he graduated from the Law School in 1938. Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 Can I get a quote that supports the claim?
    From the source, He climbed mountains on several continents, once rode from Paris to New Delhi on a motorcycle, and had begun a career as a free-lance writer when his father died. (Emphasis added.) Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 Where does it say Terkel?
    Studs Turkel, a friend of Kalven and Kalven's late father, presented the award. Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 I notice that the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the source. Also, where is 500,000 mentioned?
    I've rephrased many portions. Also, the $500,000 corresponds to burned through nearly half a million dollars in legal fees. Edge3 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 OK
  • 14 OK
  • 16 Can I get quotes that support the claims?
    I'll make it easier for you and provide a full copy of the article. Edge3 (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like this checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 I notice that the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the source.
    The source has a CC license mentioned in the citation, therefore reuse is permitted. Edge3 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 OK
  • 20 This should probably specify which arguments were rejected.
    The article already states in the preceding sentence, The city denied the requests, arguing that the complaint register files were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they related to the police department's adjudication proceedings, and also because they contained preliminary recommendations on potential disciplinary actions. Both arguments were rejected. Edge3 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 OK
  • 22 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 24 OK
  • 26 OK
  • 27 OK

I am a little uneasy about the similarity of some sources to the text in the article, some may fall under WP:LIMITED and others might not. Something unrelated to spotcheck, but have these sources been mined? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I started responding above and will address the remainder soon. I have used Google Scholar before, but it's been a while since I last checked, so I'll take another look and see if anything needs to be added. Edge3 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've responded to all of your feedback above. As for the Google Scholar results, thanks for sharing them! Most of them were written or co-written by Kalven himself, and the remainder didn't necessarily catch my attention as sources that I should use. Edge3 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Along with his wife and an associate". I think that you should name the associate here.
    Eads only gets mentioned twice in the entire biography, so I'm not sure that he needs to be explicitly named in the lead. However, I did notice that Kalven's wife, Patricia Evans, was not named in the lead at all, so I've changed that accordingly. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "incorporated as a nonprofit". You need a link or a few words to explain what a nonprofit means in this context. Does it have a defined meaning under Illinois law? If it is just a general term for a nonprofit organization then it would be helpful to say "nonprofit organization". (This may be a UK comment if "nonprofit" is AmerEng.)
    "Nonprofit" is commonly used as the shorter form of "nonprofit organization", and I've expanded that term accordingly. In the US, the nonprofit most commonly referred to is the 501(c)(3) organization. The Invisible Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kalven, born c. 1949,[1][2][3][4][5]". Five references is too many for a simple statement.
    If memory serves, there was a slight disagreement among the sources, which is why I have to use the circa qualifier. Let me take another look and see if I need to add a clarifying note. Edge3 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed this matter. There is disagreement among the sources on the year of birth. See below:
Estimated year of birth
Source Date of publication Reported age Estimated birth year
Hyde Park Herald May 25, 2022 72 1949–1950
Chicago June 7, 2007 (byline) 57 1949–1950
August 2006 (issue date) 1948–1949
The Forward December 28, 2015 67 1947–1948
Chicago Tribune August 3, 1988 39 1948–1949
The New York Times April 25, 1986 37 1948–1949
  • The reason Chicago is listed twice is that the article was published on June 7, 2007, but was part of the August 2006 issue. This results in different estimates of the birth year.
    All sources support a possible birth year of 1949, except for one: The Forward. I am using circa 1949 to reflect the uncertainty, and I've provided all five sources as inline citations to allow the reader to make their own judgment. Edge3 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Afterwards, he graduated from Wesleyan University." Is it not known what he studied?
    I'm unable to determine what he studied, but I was able to find his graduation year. Edge3 (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The attack prompted Kalven to understand the drivers of violence, poverty, and racial divisions in America". "understand" claims too much. Maybe "seek to understand" or "investigate".
    Changed to "investigate". Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2007, Bond's lawsuit settled out of court for $150,000." This is ungrammatical and confusing. A lawsuit does not settle, it is settled. Presumably Bond received the money, but you should say so.
    I switched to the phrase "was settled". It's not clear whether Bond received all of the money, or if a portion went to her attorneys. The sources don't say exactly how the payout was allocated. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 'Works' I would prefer his name each time instead of a line, but that is a personal view.
    This format is consistent with MOS:WORKS#Template, which states: {{Cite book}} may be used to format bibliography entries; for single-author lists, use |author-mask= to avoid repeating the author's name. Edge3 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 Shots (2019), producer. It should be "co-producer".
    Changed. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 'External links', why is 'Citizen Police Data Project' double indented?
    The data project is a project of the Invisible Institute, and the Institute's website provides the link to the data project. Edge3 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments! I'm starting to respond to around half of them, and will address the remainder soon. Edge3 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: Thanks again! I've responded to all remaining feedback, above. Please let me know your thoughts. Edge3 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine now, although I would spell out that sources differ on his date of birth, which would explain why there are so many citations for it. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I've added a footnote to explain the ambiguity on the year of birth. I appreciate your support! Edge3 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • "Kalven has been referred to as a "guerrilla journalist" ... "landmark decision" ". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
    I've added attribution for "guerrilla journalist". As for "landmark decision", I initially used quotation marks because I regarded it as a legal term of art. However, the quotation marks are probably unnecessary because I'm linking to landmark decision. See MOS:QUOTEPOV, stating: "Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation." I've removed them. Edge3 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formally incorporated". What does "formally" add? I mean, can one informally incorporate?
    Removed "formally". Edge3 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually mean to say "became a hub for information related to ... police whistleblowers"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was meant to refer to reports from police whistleblowers, but it's not essential to the lead section so I'll remove it. Edge3 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with 'and reports from police whistleblowers', but it's your call. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it back in. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much, @Gog the Mild, for making this a pleasant experience at FAC! I appreciate your guidance throughout the whole process. Edge3 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jamie_Kalven/archive1&oldid=1195029735"