Talk:Joseph H. Allen/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Pretty good overall. There are a few prose issues, and I question the decision to devote more than ten percent of the article to the history of a building, but this is close to GA-quality. See my specific comments below. Steve Smith (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it well-written?

• "Joseph H. Allen (September 5, 1821 – April 24, 1884) was an industrial businessman, officer in the Civil War, and the twenty-first supervisor of Brunswick, New York." Faulty parallelism.
  • Explain what you mean by "faulty parallelism"? I don't have a problem with you changing it to whatever you think is more appropriate.
    • I explain parallelisms in point 5 of this, my in-progress-but-largely-abandoned guide to writing a featured article.
• "He successfully ran for supervisor of the town of Brunswick in 1856..." Why "town of Brunswick" instead of just "Brunswick"? If you're deliberately describing the body corporate, "town" should be capitalized (assuming the body corporate's name is "Town of Brunswick").
  •  Done
• "He left home when he was eight years old "to carve out a fortune for himself"." Whose quote is this?
  •  Done Labeled quote source.
• "He shipped his horses, “thirty-two in number,”" Here too. What's added by the quote here?
  •  Done Good point, no need.
• "...enabling him to pay all his debts and earn him a profit." Faulty parallelism.
  •  Done?
• "This business connection..." Odd word choice. "Venture", maybe?
  • Well, it specifically references the partnership between the two men (Allen and Edson). Using the word "venture" makes it sound like the business ended, when it was only Edson's involvement that ended.
    • I'd suggest partnership, then; it's used towards the end of the previous sentence, but would be less awkward.
• Even if the history of the building is to stay (see below), the word variety needs to be increased: "success" and its variants are found four times in five sentences, and "property" appears four times in three sentences. It could be tightened up considerably with a judicious use of pronouns and some adjusted sentence structure.
  •  Done Did my best.
• "The factory was on the rocky banks of the Poesten Kill, a creek that was commonly used for water power in the area." This seems out of place, especially when it separates the pronoun subject of the next sentence from its antecedent. The entire previous paragraph was about the building; wouldn't the building's location be better dealt with there?
  • Rearranged the paragraph.
• "He had two new buildings erected and funneled creek water to the structures..." "The structures" are the same as the "two new buildings", right? So why not use a pronoun?
  •  Done
• "Allen reopened the company in 1859, having added machinery for the manufacture of hoes and opening a retail store on site." Doesn't work as is. Make the "having added...manufacture of hoes" a parenthetical by putting a comma after it, or make the sentence parallel by changing "opening" to "opened". Or rearrange otherwise, but do something.
  •  Done (I think)
• "Allen found a successful market in the South, where demand was high." Second consecutive sentence beginning with subject's name; why not a pronoun?
  •  Done
• "Allen's presence was noticeable within Brunswick." I'm not sure what this sentence adds.
  • It summarizes Allen's involvement in politics and the church before explaining it in detail.
    • I disagree that it adds anything, but this would be one of those matters of opinion I mentioned in my note on your talk page.
• "In March 1853, Allen presided..." If the previous sentence is to stay, you need to change the subject's name to a pronoun here.
  •  Done
• "He was also elected justice of the peace in 1861, however he did not finish his term..." I think that some authorities recognize "however" as a coordinating conjunction, but they're in the minority. I'd strongly recommend not using it as such, since it makes a lot of people cringe.
  • Changed "however" to "but". Good?
• "He also closed his business in 1861 for the same reason." The closure of his business is dealt with in the previous section, which makes this rather out of place.
  • I guess I'm trying to connect the chronological dots since his biography isn't written 100% chronologically. Still think it should go?
• "In September 1862, Allen enlisted in Company C of the 169th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment and was chosen captain, having organized the company within six days. Earlier, the 125th Volunteer Infantry Regiment had been put together in Brunswick and Allen responded to President Lincoln's call for a second group from the town." Too much time travel: the order of events seems to have been 1. 125th organized, 2. Lincoln calls for a second group, 3. Allen organizes Company C in 6 days, 4. Allen enlists, but they're dealt with in the order 4-3-1-2. Why not rearrange to reduce reliance on pluperfect, etc.?
  •  Done I think that should fix it.
• "Residents of the town helped raise all the money necessary..." "Helped" and "all" work at cross-purposes, here. As I understand "helped", the residents raised some of the necessary money, but not all of it. The simplest solution seems to be eliminating "all", unless I'm misunderstanding this.
  • Changed to "Residents of the town raised the money..."
• "...detailed for five months in New York to forward recruits." I confess that I don't know what this means, which is probably due to my ignorance of military matters. Still, could it be reworded to make the article more accessible?
  • See response to next issue.
• "At this time, he was recovering from wounds he received in battle." I assume this was the major reason that he was in New York rather than with the regiment? If so, it should probably be provided as the explanation, rather than as an afterthought.
  • Rewrote the whole thing.
• More time travel: first he's injured in battle, then he goes to New York, but the article has him in New York, then mentions why, then goes into an account of his performance in the previous battles.
  • Rewrote.
• "...which he had still dabbled in a bit..." Quite colloquial.
  •  Done
• First three sentences of "Post war" mention Allen by name; again, don't fear pronouns.
  •  Done
• "...and he was able to again secure..." Pet peeve of mine: "was able to" is almost always bad writing. Here, it would be more concisely written as "...and again secured..." (if he secured it, it's redundant to state that he was able to secure it - if he wasn't able to, how did he secure it?).
  •  Done No disagreements here.
• "The Planters' Hoe Company was still a success as late as the 1890s, however it was extinct by the 1920s." See above on the use of "however" as a coordinating conjunction; here I'd recommend just replacing it with "but".
  •  Done
• "Allen was a Whig in politics until 1861, after which time he became "an unswerving Democrat"." Why are we dealing with this here, when his political career was dealt with in the previous section?
  • I see what you're saying. I put it into the Public Service section.
• "Based on insignia carved on his gravestone (specifically the Square and Compasses), Allen was also a Mason." Also?
  •  Done
• "In New York, a town supervisor is viewed by many to be equivalent to a mayor, however a supervisor is actually..." "However" as a coordinating conjunction again.
  •  Done
• "The area was originally known as Milltown, then Millville, and later Eagle Mills; these names all refer to the same place. All of these names come from the industrial nature of the hamlet. Eagle Mills is a hamlet (small, unincorporated settlement) in the town of Brunswick. It is currently known as Eagle Mills; the name Millville is defunct and Milltown, also defunct, was rarely used to begin with." This is sort of all over the place: first it talks about the hamlet's previous names, then it says what a hamlet is and where this one is located, and then it goes back to the names. What about something like "Eagle Mills is a hamlet in the town of Brunswick. It was previously known as Milltown and later Milville; both names are now defunct."
  •  Done Admittedly not my best writing right there.

Steve Smith (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks acceptable, so I'm passing this. I've left a couple of parting notes, in bold, but you can decide whether and to what extent you want to act on those. Steve Smith (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

Generally good: lots of inline citations, and all sources appear suitable.

• Could you provide a cite for the names of Allen's children?
  •  Done
• "In New York, a town supervisor is viewed by many to be equivalent to a mayor, however a supervisor is actually the presiding officer of the town council and is therefore part of the legislative branch." In many cities, including many American cities, the mayor is the presiding officer of the town council (and therefore part of the legislative branch), which means that the equivalence between mayor and town supervisor could actually be correct (and not, as implied here, false).
  • A mayor is the executive branch of a city with a mayor-council government, which makes up the vast majority of city governments in New York. However, towns don't have an "executive" branch. This is uncommon information among New Yorkers. Most assume that "Supervisor" is just legalese for "mayor" when in fact it isn't if you think of mayor as it is legally defined in the state. The NYS Dept of State source explains it well here (page 66). upstateNYer 21:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• The lead states that his parents were British, while the body suggests that they were merely of British descent. This should probably be clarified one way or another.
  •  Done
• "However, he soon obtained credit..." He could hardly have been badly in debt without obtaining credit; what is meant by saying that he obtained credit after he was badly in debt?
  • See answer to the "badly in debt" question in the next section.

Steve Smith (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I like your clarification on the footnote about town government. Pass. Steve Smith (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it broad in its coverage?

• Is the history of the Eagle flour mills building necessary? It takes up well over ten percent of the article, and bears only the most tangential relevance to Allen.
  • It was one of the more historically important industrial buildings in the town. I started a new paragraph for the building and started it saying as such. His involvement ended up bringing a lot more industry into the town, however I dont' currently have a source for that. Once I do, I'll connect the two ideas, but for now, it still offers a good overview of his company's influence (and the history of the town).
• "...thus placing him badly in debt." How did this place him in debt? Weren't the horses fully paid for by the clock store?
  • Good question. No explanation is given. The source says this:

"He commenced to work in an auger-factory at an early age, at Hamden, Conn., and continued until he was seventeen years old, when he purchased a store of clocks, which he traded for horses in Vermont and Canada. He shipped his horses, “thirty-two in number,” to the West Indies; but the ship was wrecked, and his horses were lost, thus placing him badly in debt. With a perseverance which has characterized him through life, he obtained credited, and again shipped a number of horses to the West Indies, this time doing well, which enabled him to pay all his indebtedness and leave him a margin besides."

• "At one point, he experimented with producing cable chains and files, but the company soon ran into legal difficulties and was dissolved." Very confusing. Were the legal difficulties related to the cable chain/file experiment? If so, why couldn't he just shut down that operation, rather than dissolving the whole company? If not, what's it doing in the same sentence, with the coordinating conjunction?
  • No, they are coincidental. Reworded.
• Do we know anything about what he did as supervisor? Steve Smith (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Nope, I've literally exhausted all the sources there are on the guy. Any ambiguity is only there because it won't become more detailed.

For the record, my view is that the building history in the article is excessive, but that's a matter of opinion, and not one to hold up a GAN over. This section's a pass. Steve Smith (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it neutral?

Yes. Steve Smith (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it stable?

Yes. Steve Smith (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

Image choices are good and all three images are in the public domain, but the tagging's off: the signature should be tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} (signatures are ineligible for copyright under U.S. law), while the other two should be tagged with {{PD-1923}}, as the life plus 70 rule is for works unpublished before 1977. Works published before 1923 are in the public domain regardless of whether the author has been deceased for 70 years. Steve Smith (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good to know for future scans 19th-century scans. upstateNYer 21:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, this section is now a pass. Steve Smith (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Steve Smith (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you see minor things with this article, you can feel free to edit it yourself. After all, it's not my article. upstateNYer 00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)