# Talk:New York Herald Tribune

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York Herald Tribune/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 02:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
"Tribune -- New York" is confusing. Kluger says the New York Sophisticates were attracted to the redesigned Sunday edition, of which New York magazine was the "most arresting feature". This sentence needs a rewrite. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed -- I struck this part out.Idols of Mud (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
WP:LEADCITE allows for citations in the lede but it also suggests that the lede should generally include material already in the body of the article so duplicate citations aren't needed. After my initial sweep through the lede, I'd consider chopping the lede back down to sourced information in the body although that's not necessary, just a suggestion. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Tried to cut this down to the best of my ability. But if I missed anything, will be happy to chance..Idols of Mud (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
You have a few bare URLs that ought to be corrected. WP:CITEVAR seems to allow for bare URLs but also says they're insufficient. I go with the latter interpretation. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I cut out the bare URLs in the text referring to Letter from a Birmingham Jail, the Dingbat and a radio show. Will be glad to cut out others if needed.Idols of Mud (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Idols of Mud (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
That was a poor decision. Those were perfectly good references and all they needed was filling out, not deleting. I had to fix them myself would should not be the case. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You should remove the "see also" section entirely since the link to Harold Horton Sheldon is tenuous at best. The "external links" section should go, too, since the WNYC item is already used as a a citation. It's in the wrong place, anyway. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Both should be gone now.Idols of Mud (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
I don't think the "Chronicling America" citation will work with {{sfn}}. I'd recommend you put the citation itself in there. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Struck this out.Idols of Mud (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, I don't know if you have a fascination with Harvard references or you misunderstood my comment. There was nothing wrong with the source. Any citation that's not a book doesn't tend to fit well with {{sfn}}. I fixed it. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The same is true for the Time citations. The sfn template doesn't work that way and you'd do well switch to using {{Cite web}}. All of the citations like that need to be converted. The Harvard references are really only appropriate for citing page numbers in a book. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think I removed direct citations to Time Magazine. Anything referencing it should now be from Kluger.Idols of Mud (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Now the Time references are still listed at the bottom but you removed them from where they were useful in the body. Again, you seem to use a hatchet when a scalpel is needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Page 640 of Kluger does not substantiate the 412,000 number; the source says "averaging above 400,000". The citation should read page 647. Page 8-9 of Kluger does not substantiate the claim of being chief rival to NYT "for most of its existence"; the source says "at the end of 1945". NYT was always the Herald Tribune's rival, not the other way-round. That source also doesn't cover the "newspaperman's newspaper" claim. Roberts backs up the claim "The Trib was a writer’s paper" so you might change it to that. You added this content years ago. Kluger doesn't cover the Pulitzer claim, either. This lists several employees of the Herald Tribune that won but "Ding" Darling only had his cartoons syndicated through the paper and others. Gardener Cowles "permitted Darling to syndicate his cartoons through the New York Herald Tribune. In 1916 Darling signed a ten-year contract with that syndicate.." as it says here. The "viewed among the best" and "its writing was considered vastly superior to its rival's" aren't sourced and the citation in Tifft & Jones doesn't help. 655 in Kluger doesn't support the strike but 647 does. The entire lede is a mess. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Page 30 of Kluger doesn't support the assertion about Bennett founding the paper on that day. Page 34 does. Page 39 of Kluger doesn't substantiate the "most comprehensive newspaper in the country" claim. The citation about the Mexican American War should include page 63. The citation for the first sentence about the Tribune should include pages 26 and 28. The citation for Jeffersonian and New-Yorker should include pages 42 and 43. Page 75 of Kluger doesn't cover the ceaseless war comment. Page 51 of Kluger doesn't cover the "leading American exponent of socialism" comment. The citation about merging Log Cabin, Tribune, and New-Yorker should start on page 49. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Made these changes. The full quote from page 75 of Kluger: "His editorials were not written to analyze or discuss; they were weapons, rather, in a ceaseless war to improve society."Idols of Mud (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
When I had the book in front of me I couldn't find that line. I guess I can AGF but I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Went back to my Kluger to triple-check and yes, it's page 75 of the first edition. For what it's worth, it's the beginning of the third paragraph of the second section of Chapter 3, "The Crusader."Idols of Mud (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Page 31 of Tifft supports neither the "overused and underpaid" quote nor the claim of gaining Whig readership. Page 175 of Kluger supports the paper was losing $2000 a week, not $3000. Page 44 of Tifft doesn't support the paper shifting from republican to Democrat. Page 56 doesn't support the "most complete newspaper in the city" claim either. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Made these changes.Idols of Mud (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The  note about Titanic should start on page 181. The citation about "willing to fight for his reporters in court" should continue to page 188. I think the whole sentence should go because his role as manager isn't discussed there. It would be enough to point out that Reid permitted the Tribune's lawyers to keep fighting the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Page 210 of Kluger doesn't support any of the readership claims. The citation about Bennett writing for Paris Herald at age 73 should start at page 207. Page 292 of Kluger covers Laurence Hills leadership but page 295 covers the 1937 reorganization, so the citation should reflect that. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Made these changes. Page 210 of Kluger: "(The Herald's)  circulation at the beginning of 1924 was 166,000, less than half the morning World and Times daily figures and only 35,000 ahead of the slowly by steadily climbing Tribune." Idols of Mud (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, the sentence now makes it look like Reid was doing anything other than paying the lawyers. Please fix. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Roger. Struck that out.Idols of Mud (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I reworded it. Just chopping away is perhaps easier and quicker but it doesn't improve the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Page 361 of Kluger makes out neither the claim about comprehensiveness nor the claim about a dozen field correspondents. Page 391 of Kluger doesn't explicitly say that Helen Reid was in charge although I'll let you get away with it. Page 423 does a better job for that claim. 423 does not substantiate that Whitie was an editor. 422 says he nominally presided over the daily editorial meeting and weekly breakfast with the editors as a matter of on-the-job training. This from NYT says he became editor and vice president of the paper in 1947, so you ought to better specify. The citation about Whitie covering the Blitz should extend to page 336. Helen Reid's cut of $1M and firing 25 employees occurs on p425, not 426 of Kluger. Robinson's comment about transients occurs on 424, not 426. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Made these changes. Page 361 of Kulger: "The Tribune never had fewer than a dozen correspondents covering the war."Idols of Mud (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, I'll let this pass although I think there was a more elegant solution for Whitie's role as editor de jure. If you ever take this article to A-class or FA this is certainly something that could use more work. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The citation about Higgins and Bigart et al sharing the Pulitzer should start on page 448. The citation about Walter Kerr is on page 487, not 491. The Tangle Towns citation should include page 494 of Kluger. The line about Whitney's $1.2M loan is on page 530 of Kluger, not 529. The "expert silliness" occurs on 612 of Kluger but the "klaxon headlines" occur on 613. The citation about Catledge should extend to page 614. John Lindsey is mentioned on page 702, not 701. I'm allowing thomascrampton.com as a source only because Crampton works for Ogilvy & Mather and therefore might pass the WP:SPS rule. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Made these changes.Idols of Mud (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 
Roberts calls it "The Trib" lots but he doesn't say everyone else did, too. Page 8 of Kluger says "those less reverential than the paper's old guard" referred to it that way. GA Review isn't in the habit of making these assumptions. You need a citation for the supposed $40M Jock Whitney invested. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Made these changes.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
In the section about Jeffersonian and New-Yorker the 80,000 and profitable claims aren't sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Pages 43-44 of Kluger: "The Log Cabin proved remarkably popular; its circulation rose to 80,000 and turned a modest profit for Greeley."Idols of Mud (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You need a citation for the 4 million price of the paper Munsey paid. Page 263-268 of Kluger makes out the claim about Bleek's being a popular hangout and the whole of those pages indicate most of the newspapermen were given to drink and perhaps Ogden Mills Reid had a little too much sometimes but it doesn't make out he was an alcoholic. That claim needs a citation that actually says that. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Made these changes. Kluger on page 6 refers to "one unfortunate effect of (Reid's) alcoholism."Idols of Mud (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Pages 469-474 of Kluger don't exactly make out the assertions about Brown Reid, the FBI, and communist conspiracies. I recommend you rewrite it. None of the assertions about the Newspaper Guild appear on page 649 of Kluger. Page 255 of Kluger doesn't support the "circulation to 282,000" claim. Page 714 of Kluger says nothing about the publishers association. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Just decided to strike that Communist section. Guild section is on page 651 and I changed the citation. Circulation citation is on 663 and I changed that. Corrected the citation on the departure from the publishers' association.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The Alm citation ought to specify page numbers 174-176 where the content actually appears. The assertion that the Herald Tribune "vied with the Newbery for most prestigious" is debatable. I'd remove it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Made these changes.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
So far there's no evidence of COPYVIO but we'll see about the close-paraphrasing. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Richard Kluger wrote fully 20% of this article based on how many quotes of his are used here. Still, the quotes are perfectly allowable and better than close paraphrasing although writing a bit more in your own words might have been better. Kluger turns a good phrase and I'd hate to lose that color but the use of quotes throughout is noticeable. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Yup. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
This is a long article and a bear to review but I don't see how you could cover the subject without including these other details. If anything, since the labor unions and bad financing brought an end to the paper you could add a little more in the article describing how this had been an ongoing issue but I think this has been well done. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Based on the source material I'm reading, this article faithfully discusses the subject. I saw no issues with POV or UNDUE. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No edit warring here. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
File:Whitelaw Reid.jpg doesn't have a US rationale. I'm going to have to review the rules more closely for File:Helen and Ogden Reid, New York Tribune, 1920.jpg. The picture is old but it was published in a book not so long ago. File:Marguerite Higgins.jpg isn't allowed on any article other than the one about her, so claims the NFCC. File:New York Herald Tribune June 27 1962.jpg doesn't have a valid license.
I'll AGF on the "Helen and Ogden Reid" picture. If Commons believes the picture to be public domain I'll assume it is. I couldn't find specific guidance on if that picture is owned by whomever printed the book. I'll look into it but for now I'll assume that image is ok. The rest need to be resolved. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Removed the questionable images.Idols of Mud (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The Whitelaw Reid image only needed the "PD-1923" template. It was an easy fix. If you want to send articles through GA you will need to learn your way around Commons and image use. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
I'll be examining this in more detail. I think you have a few modern portraits that don't do much for this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need images of Breslin and Wolfe. They aren't really part of the story and I don't think we have to use images to break up the text. A picture of Denson or Whitney would make more sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Dropped the Wolfe and Breslin photos.Idols of Mud (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I've provided a long list of what needs to be fixed. This was a drudgery to review but the only way we can be sure it's a good article is going to the library and checking. I still have a couple other citations to check but this is the majority. I picked this review as part of the current GA Cup. Because of that, I'll leave this review on hold for you to make the requisite changes for one week and six days from now. Come February 26th this review is ending one way or the other. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Sincere thanks for your diligence on this. I'm jumping in to make the fixes.Idols of Mud (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Made (I think) most if not all of the recommendations here. I may have overlooked some things so don't hestiate to let me know if I missed anything. Thanks again for your help with this. 18:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Idols of Mud (talk)
@Idols of Mud: There are still a few things to resolve, including the image issues and the citations that should not be Harvard style. You also introduced a broken citation and you still have bare URLs to fix. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. I tried to address all the issues here but again, if I overlooked anything let me know. Idols of Mud (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
If not for the points I get in the GA Cup for this review, I would regret having ever took this on. In the future please make sure you have articles up to snuff before you nominate them. It's one thing to have to go and double-check everything but it's something else to find so much wrong with the article. I would like to see this article go to A-class or FA but there would be more work involved. Feel free to let me know if you need help with WP:DYK. You have only seven days to nominate a hook and I would enjoy seeing this article get more eyeballs. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


### Mere Suggestions
These are some suggestions outside of the review which I think might better the article:

If you look at Swanberg page 334, it's explaining about how the tawdry personals section was so obviously for prostitution that 'newsmen called it "the Whore's Daily Guide and Handy Compendium."' Page 184 of Kluger says Bennett paid the fine in person with a stack of thousand-dollar bills. If you submit this article to WP:DYK (assuming this is listed as a GA) I would definitely consider adding a snippet about this and using it for the hook. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

GA on the NY Herald Tribune but no mention of Book Week?  czar 03:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

To editor Stoshmaster: You are ruining this article with unsourced/ poorly-sourced material. What gives? That material is probably undue coverage, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your opinion in such a thoughtful and considerate way. Obviously, I disagree, although I appreciate you spurring me to find stronger sources (which I did). As a Wikipedia editor, I specialize in comics and comic strips, and I feel that expanding the information about The New York Herald-Tribune Syndicate and its strips is doing a service to that community. I hardly feel that adding some author names and publication dates to the Syndicate section is giving undue coverage to what already is an extremely long and detailed article. If anything, the Syndicate deserves to have its own article (as is the case with many other current and former syndicates that originated as in-house operations of various newspapers). -- stoshmaster (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that this newspaper dropped the hyphen in 1914. The title was New-York Tribune until mid-April 1914 and New York Tribune from then. Both versions appear in the article, which might seem like a mistake, but it isn't. RabbitFromMars (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)