User talk:Goldsztajn/Archives/2021/March

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Goldsztajn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for your fantastic contributions to Women in Red's Women in Africa contest. An update, now that we're two months in: over 100 articles have been created in January and February! Please help make the final month of the contest a success too :) Dsp13 (talk) 14:37, 1 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 above discussion. 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! 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 clear sourcing showing he 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)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)