Talk:Mary van Kleeck

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Mary van Kleeck

• ... that Mary van Kleeck (pictured), a social reformer and labor activist, was the first woman appointed to a position of authority in the American government during WWI? Source: Robins, Raymond, Mrs.; Rippey, Sarah Cory, eds. (1918). Life and Labor. 8. National Women's Trade Union League. (source [link])
  • ALT1:... that during World War I, the Labor Department of the United States created a Women in Industry Service sub-agency, which was headed by social reformer Mary van Kleeck (pictured)?

5x expanded by Ganesha811 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

• @Ganesha811: I'll review this. epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it falls just short of the length criteria: 1,485 characters before, to 6,909 characters afterward. The expected character count would be about 7,425 characters. I'm willing to give some leeway and allow you to add a couple more characters, even though you nominated it several days ago. I can then continue with the rest of the review.

Epicgenius, thank you! That's unfortunate to hear - I'd assumed it was a big enough expansion. I'm still pretty new to this. Thank you for the leeway - I'll expand the article a bit further today and let you know when I'm done. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: - I've expanded the article and it should be above the 5x standard now. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do! Thanks for your help. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Should be good to go now. epicgenius (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 and Epicgenius: Great article and hook! Should we add the image from the article to the hook? It appears to be PD (pre-1924). – Levivich 17:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, Epicgenius don't see why not! I don't know how, though - only had one DYK before and it didn't have an image. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Added freely-licensed image. Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Two good academic sources

Two very good academic sources for future expansion:

Beyond the Rank and File Movement: Mary van Kleeck and Social Work Radicalism in the Great Depression, 1931-1942 by Patrick Selmi and Richard Hunter

Mary van Kleeck and Social-Economic Planning by Guy Alchon of Cambridge

These additional sources are not readily available, but if anyone has an academic login, perhaps they can access them:

Mary van Kleeck, Lillian Gilbreth and the Women’s Bureau study of gendered labor law

Continuing an Alternative View of Public Administration: Mary van Kleeck and Industrial Citizenship, 1918-1927

Mary van Kleeck, Taylorism and the control of management knowledge

Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thesis written on van Kleeck

This master's thesis, from 1986, was written by Dahrl Elizabeth Moore at Florida Atlantic. It is entitled: "MARY VAN KLEECK: A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HER WRITINGS" and thus seems like a good resource. http://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A11115

Ganesha811 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, unpublished theses and dissertations should be used sparingly, and with care. Validly published and peer-reviewed sources, like the ones you've listed above, should be used first and foremost. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Animalparty, ah, thank you! I was wondering what the policy was on this but wasn't sure. Appreciate the clarification and the point in the right direction. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Another thesis that covers van Kleeck extensively is below - although it should not necessarily be used for referencing directly in the article, it could be useful in finding other sources and understanding context. Ganesha811 (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Kran, Lori Ann, "Gendered law : a discourse analysis of labor legislation, 1890-1930." (1993). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1195. https://doi.org/10.7275/17dx-4n94 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1195

Sources of Congressional testimony

Two sources of Congressional testimony given by Mary van Kleeck are freely available online.

The first is to the House Ways and Means Committee in 1935, during the debate about the passage of the Social Security system.

Link: https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/hr35kleeck.pdf

The Second is to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations in 1953, on the subject of whether she is a Communist - questioned by Roy Cohn.

Link: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Volume2.pdf

Ganesha811 (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

question

Van Kleeck's department "became a leading center for expertise" on industry and labor, training graduate students, developing new methods of investigation, and enduring reprisals from aggrieved corporations and wealthy donors to the Sage Foundation.

Ganesha811 This sounds like the department became a leading center for expertise on enduring reprisals from corps/donors? Is that correct, or is this an issue with sentence construction? I'm wondering if the department endured these reprisals rather than was an expert on enduring them. Sorry, I can't get to the source to check. --valereee (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Valereee - hmm, sounds like I didn't write the sentence clearly enough - I'll rephrase! Thanks for mentioning this. It's definitely that they endured reprisals rather than becoming expert in enduring them. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ganesha811, I thought it might be just a long sentence that kind of lost its way :) --valereee (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary van Kleeck/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 23:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is very well written; I found nothing to complain about at the copyediting level (WP:GACR 1a). The lead appropriately summarizes the body of the article rather than incorporating new material. The only potential word to watch is "rapturous", but it is immediately and adequately sourced. There is no fiction or list incorporation (GACR 1b).
• Most or all references appear to be in Citation Style 1, as generated by the {{cite}} series of templates. However, there are some minor formatting inconsistencies in formatting, notably in the Richardson-Fisher and Alchon references, due to nonstandard use of template parameters (authors or editors should be listed in author or editor parameters, not "others", and without birth years). (GACR 2a.)
• The article is thoroughly sourced, the sources all appear reliable, and spot-checking the sources found no inaccuracies or problematic sourcing. Quotations are clearly marked and sourced. (GACR 2b.) All claims appear to be properly sourced (GACR 2c.) Neither Earwig nor my spot-checks found any copied wording nor even problematic close paraphrasing; the Earwig scores are unusually high (several in the 30% range) but this is only because of long proper names of organizations and properly marked quotes. (GACR 2d.)
• The article appears to cover all the significant events in the subject's life, and is balanced in its coverage rather than going into excessive detail about unimportant material (GACR 3a and 3b). There is some editorialization (e.g. "rapturous" again) but always properly attributed to the holder of the opinion; everything written in Wikipedia's voice is properly neutral (GACR 4).
• Some significant article improvements have continued since the GA nomination, but it has not been left in a problematic state and there appears to be no major edit-warring. No significant disagreements are evident on the article talk page. So despite the ongoing change I think this is stable enough (GACR 5).
• The article has five images, three of the subject and two illustrating the context for her education and work. All are relevant and suitably captioned. All are from commons. The two Harris & Ewing portraits, and the ordnance workers, are clearly and appropriately licensed. I am more skeptical about the image of Smith College, as it has no provenance that would ensure the accuracy of its claimed public domain status, but it's likely to be ok and there are several images in Commons:Category:College Hall (Smith College) that could replace it if necessary. The final portrait is probably ok but its metadata on commons has an incorrect date "0018"; is this intended to be 1918? (GACR 6a, 6b).

Overall, this is in very good shape. There are only minor formatting issues under 2a and minor image metadata issues under 6a. I don't think this is enough to block Good Article status or delay its approval, and I have good faith that the article editors will see this review and address these issues in any case. So I will mark this as an immediate pass, rather than requiring the more usual second round of review. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein, thank you for your thorough review! I appreciate the pass and I'll fix those minor issues soon! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Source on van Kleeck and Taylorism

This paper by Nyland & Heenan (Mary van Kleeck, Taylorism, and the Rule of Knowledge) has a lot of great info about her relationship with Taylorism to incorporate into the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia front page problem...

On the front page, it says "In 1916 she became the director of the Russell Sage Foundation's Department of Industrial Studies, which she led for over 30 years," but on the current article, it says "Van Kleeck rose to prominence as director of the Russell Sage Foundation's Department of Industrial Studies, which she led for over 30 years, beginning in 1916." This means the front page has not been updated. Do you think they can fix it? 69.243.164.5 (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The version on the main page should be a condensed summary, so we don't expect them to use the same wording. See WP:TFA. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. 69.243.164.5 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)