Talk:James Hood Wright

Follow-up comments from GA1 reviewer

Moving a talk page discussion here for future reference (some minor changes to my comments to reflect new location). --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cleveland Todd, I just noticed your GA renomination of J H Wright ― looks like you've done a lot of work addressing the problems with the article, thanks for your efforts. A few drive-by comments having glanced at the discussion on your talk page with Doug Coldwell. I won't do another review of the article, in my mind it's best to let fresh eyes look at this. I think your instinct about the article's over-referencing is correct; there's no rule that every single fact must be referenced to multiple sources; where similar sources provide the same information, ideally one would point to the most reliable and/or the most accessible for ease of verification. In my experience the point of multiple referencing is where there might be controversy or divergence of opinion around a point of view, which is not really a problem with the subject here as far as I can see. Regarding the word count analysis I did in the final part of the review ― this was done using the word count tool in Microsoft Word, I just cut and pasted the text. I used this approach to illustrate the problem we had both noticed with the article (ie the lack of information about his career) and that none of the expansions during the review had addressed the problem. Looking over where the article stands at present, I would suggest reworking the lead as I can see a few areas where it fails WP:MOSLEAD:

• use of the terms "railroad man" seems to credit him with more than he actually was and even if one was to keep it, the link itself to Rail in the US does not convey what is meant by that term
• "He worked with Thomas Edison in electrical technology and helped finance his enterprises." -> "He facilitated investments in Thomas Edison's electrical enterprises."
• "Wright became wealthy in his business operations and was celebrated as a philanthropist." -> "Through his role in the leading finance firm of the age, Wright amassed a substantial fortune by the time of his death." There's no text in the article that indicates that he was actually celebrated for his role as a philanthropist and it seems a relatively minor part of his life.

Finally, the article has been nominated in the education subtopic, was that deliberate? I would have thought he should be in economics and business. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Goldsztajn. I moved the Frank Hood Wright comments you made to your talk page, as the section on mine was getting very unwieldy, particularly in editing. Thanks for your thoughtful insights and suggestions; I will attempt to incorporate them into the article. I agree on the surfeit of links to sometimes seemingly unrelated pages and will clean that up. I put it under "Education" with the understanding that the reviewer usually revises the subtopic to fit what he or she thinks. Wright was quite a philanthropist, evidenced by his $1 million ($29 million) legacy to the Knickerbocker Hospital, among others. Almost $4 million (2021) to the NYPL. It wasn't major, but was certainly important. I hope you'll agree that we solved the difficulty we both had with Wright's wealth - where did it come from? Mostly from his work with Drexel Morgan, J.P. Morgan and Thomas Edison, along with all the railroads. And there was no income tax! Cleveland Todd (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cleveland Todd. Glad the comments continued to help and very much agree that the new material fleshes out the origins of Wright's wealth! Just to clarify my points regarding Wright's philanthropy; I completely agree they are noteworthy for the purposes of the article. However, for the purposes of the WP:LEAD I was only indicating that there is no evidence in the article that he was *celebrated* for his philanthropy, as against the sourcing showing he was engaged in philanthropic activities. Stating that he was "celebrated as a philanthropist" is not backed by the sources as far as I could see and places undue weight (ie importance) to an issue not at the centre of the sourcing concerning him (in case you have not seen it, the wikipedia guideline MOS:LEADREL on this topic is useful). If anything, the contest over Wright's estate draws far greater significance in contemporaneous sources and I think deserves mention in the lead above mention of his philanthropy. Kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Goldsztajn. Thanks again for your input. I made the majority of the edits you suggested; they improved the article. Finally, another editor told me that the GAN reviewer always assigned whatever category he/she thought appropriate. Cleveland Todd (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Director

This entire section is effectively taken from the death notice in the New York Times and is unsuitable as written. Wright certainly served on numerous boards, but if he was the guiding hand in reorganizing the Reading in the mid-1880s I can't substantiate that in James Holton's history (which spends several pages discussing the Morgan takeover). The statement that he served as president of the Suburban Rapid Transit Road, overseeing its conversion to an elevated railroad system is presented without any context or explanation of what this company was (I don't know either and it's not even a red link). Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

DC often took content from one source, later adding different citations. Deleting it all seems fine (rewriting anew is always easier than trying to fix his work). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

That's the Suburban Rapid Transit Company. (He shows up in their 1886 board of directors.) Choess (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Choess great, thanks! Are there good sources for the company, or more generally that period of New York rapid transit? I have Cudahy's history of the subways, but it touches on it only briefly. Mackensen (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No idea. Hard to imagine there isn't one, maybe one specialized on the Els, but I don't know of one that discusses Wright directly. Choess (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Title

It's not pressing, but every source, modern and otherwise, calls him "J. Hood Wright". Per WP:INITS, J. Hood Wright (I created the redirect today) is the best location of this article. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

And even those referring to him in social circumstances (for example, [1]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Estate

I'm working through the estate references as well. I'm not sure where the claim that a probate court proved the estate at $5 million in March 1895 comes from; all three of Coldwell's sources on this point are from January 1895 (!). The challenge to the estate from his half-nieces and half-nephews was withdrawn around that time. Contemporary reporting puts that value at $4-5 million. Sloppy writing (Upon Wright's death, US newspapers published stories describing his legacy), sloppy attribution. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

You might go back before my cleaning to see if it came from somewhere I had to remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've been working with the July 2021 revision that predates your revisions. It's always been like that. Litigation from 1918 mentioned in [2] appears to substantiate a date of April 1, 1895, but not the amount. The specific bequests are more important anyway. Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Great, just checking, since my clean left things hanging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)