Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/James Hood Wright/1

James Hood Wright

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: It has been over three weeks since this was last meaningfully improved, and I can see no evidence that anyone is working on it in a sandbox. Therefore, considering WP:DCGAR, delisting should be a formality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:DCGAR, although the nominator at GAN was not DC, rather Cleveland Todd, who is also blocked. I have two hours in to this article, have found one of all the usual (copy-paste, too close paraphrasing, content not supported by sources, "first" trivia, etc), and have no will to continue. I may have gotten all copyvio, but have not checked all the PD sources for paraphrasing. I doubt the article is still broad in its coverage, and I don't know what remains to be done to keep the article at GA standard. Trainsandotherthings have you any interest? Else, @GAR coordinators: as to where this goes next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Initial discussion

My suggestion would be to notify relevant WikiProjects and then Delist if no one picks it up. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs work. Looked at the odd sentence "Wright was a director of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company", and from the sources available there's a date of starting and a reason for selection, neither of which are included. Agree with Lee it should be notified as needing a thorough checking. CMD (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Details are left out as a result of my DCGAR scrub. I will figure out how to notify WPs next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP notifications done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the scrub to be clear, mostly agreeing with your broadness comment above. CMD (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, my vote would be delist and stubify the whole thing like we do to most Doug articles. I don't really have the time or energy to work on this (and biographies don't usually interest me), I just started an FAC and that's going to keep me busy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to stubbify content that is sourced to public domain, because that's a different copyright animal. But I am just weary of reading through so much poor content, and every one of those blooming news clippings needs to be read. I would not be the least bit unhappy if someone else took a deeper knife to it than I have :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really shirk a Philadelphia-area railroad magnate, if he is such a thing. I admit my preference in such cases would be to rewrite from the ground up. Can I get a day or three to see what kind of modern sourcing might be available? Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about two and a quarter, plus change? CMD (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, awesome, take all the time you need from my end! Ping me when ready for a new look; you will find usable stuff in that which I had to scrub if you can locate sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like SandyGeorgia, I've spent a few hours on this. I've consulted a mix of academic sources that deal with the late 19th century banking scene (focusing on Drexel and Morgan), and a few sources dealing with the railroads that Wright was associated with through his position as a partner in Drexel, Morgan & Co. Wright is notable, definitely, though the apparent lack of even a biographical sketch, let along a full biography, is troublesome.^[a] I don't think the article is salvageable. It's rife with sourcing issues and practically plagiarized from The National Cyclopaedia and the obituary notices in the New York Times and Delaware Gazette and State Journal. The overuse of contemporary 19th-century newspaper accounts in general is a significant problem; as anyone who has ever written an obituary knows, relying on a brief obituary for claims of someone's accomplishments over a century later isn't acceptable.

I'm willing to write a new article to replace this one, though I'd feel more comfortable having actually read those academic sources, just to feel more comfortable with late 19th century banking. I usually work with the operational side of railroading. Who around here is our amateur expert in this area? Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we have their attention, maybe the @GAR coordinators: would work with Mike Christie to get a list of any other GAs submitted by Cleveland Todd, as I suspect there is more of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm ... I just looked at Cleveland Todd's user page, and all of those indicated at the top seem to be ... DCGARs. And yet I can't send them to WP:CP because, since the work is split between DC and CT, they aren't written by one CCI editor. So they all need individual examination and excoriation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, just to clarify, are you still willing to rewrite the entire article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Yes, but it's going to be a while. I've started by reading Strouse's biography of Morgan, just to get a feel for the setting and other players. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Susie Pak gives an overview in her 2013 social history of Morgan and related bankers; no surprises there.^[1]

References

^ Pak, Susie (2013). Gentlemen Bankers : The World of J. P. Morgan. Harvard Studies in Business History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-674-41690-1.

Image discussion

Hog Farm, as I don't do images, might you look at whether this image needs to be deleted? That does appear to be the GWB in the background, and it is unclear where DC got the 1890 date, so this image might not be public domain and might need to be deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discospinster reverted Aheimm with a note that "source says 1890", but I see no source at File:Wright house 1890.jpg and this looks typical for DC image and content issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems the the Museum of the City of New York says 1932 ... obviously, as the GWB is in the background. Surprise (not): it looks like DC made up the date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another DC-ism; the image says "unknown author" when the Museum of the City of New York does identify an author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, given that honesty issue, how do we know File:Wright mausoleum.jpg is own work -- why is there no camera metadata listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find that one concerning as well: unusual dimensions, tilted camera, no metadata. It's easily replaceable regardless. Mackensen (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mausoleum image is fishy but might be hard to track down. For the house, there's a small chance it's public domain, but I cannot find any information to support that possibility, so I've listed it at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wright house 1890.jpg, where it will either be deleted in 7 days or six months unless someone can find convincing information to support that outside chance. Hog Farm _Talk 19:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick attempt to find the mausoleum image online failed. And it is possible to upload images without exif, which I've done before when I don't want to include the location an image was taken in the file stuff. So I don't think we can prove that one either way. Hog Farm _Talk 20:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the hospital. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak images, so don't know if this one is OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

License history indicates that it was released under CC-BY-SA 2.0 in 2012, so it seems to be fine to me. Hog Farm _Talk 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This GAR remains ongoing.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[2] Susie Pak gives an overview in her 2013 social history of Morgan and related bankers; no surprises there.^[1]

[1] Pak, Susie (2013). Gentlemen Bankers : The World of J. P. Morgan. Harvard Studies in Business History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-674-41690-1.

[a]

[1]