Talk:Panic of 1907/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I am selfishly reviewing this article for GA because I have read it through and found it fascinating. Everything about the article seems to be in order. There are a few minor prose issues which I will list below, along with anything else I may find. All in all, it seems like a wonderful article. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Comments

• In the lead, perhaps you should be more specific regarding when in 1907 this occurred to orient the reader. I know that in the body of the article, you say it started in January. Maybe a time span in the lead would be good.

  Okay I clarified. The panic itself only lasted for a few weeks beginning in October 1907. The information in "economic conditions" is about how the system got to a point where a panic was possible. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "that October" - October of 1906?

  Specified. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "for the scheme experienced a number of runs which in time spread to affiliated banks and trusts.." - could remove "in time" as unnecessary wording, since you say a week later it led to....etc.

  Agree. Removed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "With the collapse of New York's third largest trust company fear spread throughout the city's trusts and across the country as regional banks pulled deposits from New York and as nationwide people withdrew deposits from their regional banks." - needs some commas - With the collapse of New York's third largest trust company, fear spread throughout the city's trusts and across the country as regional banks pulled deposits from New York, and as nationwide people withdrew deposits from their regional banks.

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• wikilink anti-trust?

  I linked to trust-busting, because it better explains the context here than anti-trust (which redirects to Competition law). --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Foreign investors would fund cash..." - Foreign investors funded cash - FAC editors hate "would"s.

  Rewrote this a bit. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "modest correction" - could this be wikilinked to correction (stock market) or something else appropriate?

  Yep. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "By late September, they had recovered about half of their losses." - not entirely sure who "they" is.

  Oops! "They" were "stocks". --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The economy stayed shaky..." - remained shaky?

  Changed it to remained volatile which is more precise. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "that June an offering of New York City bonds failed; while in July the copper market collapsed;" - semicolon is incorrect here as a comma is needed - should be ...that June an offering of New York City bonds failed, while in July the copper market collapsed;...

  Rewrote this whole graf. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• 'the Commercial & Financial Chronicle noted: "the market keeps unstable.' - usually this is formatted as The Commercial & Financial Chronicle noted: "[T]he market keeps unstable.

  The Wall Street Journal vs. the Wall Street Journal is not something style guides agree on. I went with your preference here. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "F. Augustus Heinze's company United Copper." - comma needed - Heinze's company, United Copper.

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "cautioned Heinze" - which Heinze brother? Also, you start out saying that it is F. Augustus Heinze's company, but then you switch to Otto as the main player.

  That's correct, Otto Heinze developed a plan to corner the stock in F. Augustus Heinze's company believing that the Heinze family (he, Augustus and some other family members) controlled all the stock. I went through and clarified throughout. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Heinze was ruined" - or were all the Heinzes ruined, or what? I am getting the Heinzes and their various positions confused!

  Clarified. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "By the weekend after the failed corner there was not yet..." comma needed - By the weekend after the failed corner, there was not yet...

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "boom cycle" - wikilink to Economic boom or something appropriate.

  I reworded. This was a mistake. What was happening with Trusts wasn't intrinsically cyclical. This was just a boom. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "run" - I notice that you use this word several times in the article - is there anything financial you could wikilink the first occurance of the word to?

  Done. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "agitate the confidence of New York's banks..." - odd wording - shake the confidence?

  Agree. Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "most-connected" - not sure about this word - could it be reworded somehow?

  I'm not sure... This is meant in the sense of business connections, and I think it becomes apparent throughout the article what's meant, no? Morgan had business ties with everybody. --JayHenry (talk)

• "but decided it was insolvent and decided not to intervene to stop the run." - repeting word - decided it was insolvent and therefore not to intervene to stop the run?

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Tuesday, October 22 the..." - Tuesday, October 22, the...

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "to help support the situation." - is there a better word than "situation"?

  Specified. He did this to help shore up their deposits. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "afternoon Morgan pronounced “This is the place to stop the trouble," - comma - Morgan pronounced, "This...

  fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "crash" - wikilink to Stock market crash?

  Good idea. Done. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "most famous banker Lord Rothschild sent word..." - commas - most famous banker, Lord Rothschild, sent word

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In an attempt to gather confidence, the Treasury Secretary Cortelyou agreed that it would send Washington a signal..." - not sure what "it" refers to.

  Oops, never finished this sentence when I wrote it :0 He returned to Washington to send a signal to Wall Street that the worst had passed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "To ensure a free flow of funds on Monday, the New York Clearinghouse issued $100 million in loan certificates, to be traded between banks to settle balances,..." - remove second comma - To ensure a free flow of funds on Monday, the New York Clearinghouse issued $100 million in loan certificates to be traded between banks to settle balances,...

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Unbeknown to the city a new crisis was being averted in the background." - comma needed - Unbeknown to the city, a new crisis was being averted in the background.

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "by Saturday November 2" - by Saturday, November 2,

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "economic contraction - wikilink? economic contraction

  Linked. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• "until December 22, 1913..." - comma - December 22, 1913, - you have the comma at the second mention of that date.

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I might have missed some things. I will run through the article again and check the rest of the issues. Very interesting article, but complex! It would help to wikilink as many of the financial terms as you can.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, thanks so much for taking the time to review. I will start working on these points later tonight and hopefully will be able to address most of them quickly. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! --JayHenry (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again for going over that so closely, Mattisse! If you see any other problems feel free to edit yourself (some editors don't like when reviewers get involved, but I don't mind) or if you prefer to raise them for me, that's okay too. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Update: I just learned that I have to leave town for a couple of days and I'm not going to be able to edit. I apologize that this came in the middle of a review. If further work is needed, I should be back by Monday and will be able to address concerns then. Again, my sincere apology for this unexpected delay! --JayHenry (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for letting me know. I will put the article on hold, but the seven day limit is very flexible and nothing to worry about. I probably will do some editing myself, since you don't mind. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• A great deal of editing has been done by several editors. At this point, I see no further problems with the article and will pass it as GA.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Very well written b (MoS): No obvious MoS errors

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced. b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):Broad enough to set the context. b (focused): Focuses on the issues important to the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: It is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): All images are in the public domain. b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Extremely good article. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)