Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/America's 60 Families/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2017 [1].

---

America's 60 Families

Nominator(s): DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a controversial and pseudo-conspiratorial book by Ferdinand Lundberg which was briefly influential in the late 1930s and has since been cited as an influence by Robert Caro and Ralph Nader. It recently passed GA and has, since, undergone copyediting. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by RL0919

I have not read the book and have only general knowledge of its topic, so these are "lay reader" comments.

• General:
  • The {{cquote}} template is discouraged for block quotes in articles; the {{quote}} template is preferred.
  • Some sentences are long and express multiple ideas; those could be split up to improve readability. For example, the sentence in the lead that starts "Though praised by" joins a mix of critical opinion with later use in a speech, plus a libel suit, all in one sentence.
  • Are there RS to supply a more complete publishing history? Only the initial publication in 1937 is mentioned, but I see the infobox image is from a 1946 publication.
• Lead section:
  • "the E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company" -- the definite article seems odd there.
  • Since the image in the infobox is not from the first edition, it would be helpful to have a caption saying what publication it is from.
  • Didn't do a full image review, but I did look at the book cover image, and the non-free use rationale for it could be beefed up. You should consider the {{Non-free use rationale book cover}} template as it is pre-written for this use case.
• Background section:
  • "the latest in a series" -- I assume there was not a literal series of which this is a member, so probably some other wording should be used to indicate that previous books had expressed similar ideas. Also, some information about specifics of those predecessors, such as prominent works/authors and dates, would give more context.
  • Speaking of specifics on the background, the mentions of Myers and Gerard deserve more explanation: who were they (briefly), what are the relevant works that advanced a similar thesis to Lundberg's? Also, the wording of the paragraph seems to imply that that Myers and Gerard were among the "American journalists" who wrote books on this subject, but as far as I can tell from looking at the articles about them, Gerard was never a journalist.
  • More about Lundberg would also be helpful here. What did he do before writing this book? What motivated him to write it?
• Content section:
  • The first sentence in the section is an example where splitting into two or even three sentences would be an improvement.
  • The block quote from Villard seems longer than it ought to be. The idea of the first two sentences, that the specifics were not new, could be paraphrased. The "quotable" part seems to be the middle portion about how Lundberg brings the material together. The idea at the end, about the risk of others using the book to criticize the US, could also be paraphrased as part of the follow-up discussing the Nazi pamphlet.
  • The first sentence of the Ickes-Jackson subsection is another one that really should be split.
  • Are there really just two individuals to discuss under modern views?
  • Ralph Nader seems a bit tangential to the subject to use a photo of him.
• Dedication section: Why is this a section? If the dedication is significant, then presumably the article should say who "Franklin M. Watts" was and why Lundberg dedicated the book to him. If it isn't significant, it needn't be mentioned at all, much less as a one-sentence section.

That's all for now; generally this looks like a pretty good article that just needs a bit of polishing. --RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RL0919 -thank you for this very thorough review. I believe I've made all the updates you recommended, but let me know if I've missed something. The one outstanding question of which I'm aware is additional persons to cite in the "modern views" section. I am unaware of anyone in semi-recent times who have referenced this book other than Caro and Nader. It's been out of print more than 50 years so this may not be entirely surprising. DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If the subject is not en vogue then so be it. Ideally, if there is an RS that says the book is somewhat forgotten or is only discussed in fringe circles (if that's the case), then a statement to that effect would help reassure readers that the article is not incomplete. Regarding the rest, there are quite a few changes/additions in your edits, so I will do a full re-read later today or tomorrow, and get back to you then. --RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Took a bit longer coming back around than I expected, but I've taken another pass. Made some edits, which as always you can change again if I've done anything problematic. I'm not doing full image or source reviews, but a couple of additional suggestions that may help when someone does: You should add alt text for the book cover and the picture of Villard, and you should consider adding locations for the book sources. I'm also still a little concerned about whether there are other sources for more recent reception/legacy. However, since I'm no expert on the topic, I'll stick to what I know and support on prose. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, RL0919! DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88

I am inclined to doubt that this article, as presently crafted, makes the jump from the Good Article criteria to the Featured Article criteria. That jump could potentially be made as part of this review, although my very first point below would, if actioned, involve a fairly substantial amount of new writing.

The first point is 1b – comprehensiveness. There are three areas in which I am concerned that this is not met:

(1) The book is 500 pages long but summarised in three paragraphs and a quote. I don’t think that is capable of being a comprehensive summary of Lundberg’s thesis. The thesis is conveniently divided into 12 chapters which, if summarised in about a paragraph each, would give us a comprehensive overview of the book without being too long. At the moment, the article does not mention significant portions of the book, including chapters on the press and philanthropy (VII-IX), which in my opinion falls short of what 1b requires.

(2) As mentioned in the earlier review,, there is very little mention of how the book has been perceived in the long-term, other than by two of its avowed fans. Having said that, as you have noted in response to that review, it also appears that post-1940s commentary is very limited. This 2016 book (at 249) refers in passing to the book as “muckracking”, and I doubt that reference is sufficient for inclusion. This 1940 article in Time Magazine might provide for a good perspective, although I cannot work out how to get to the full version through any of my usual databases. It may turn out that this comment (2) is not actionable: we are stuck with the situation of a book that caused a stir at the time and drifted quickly into obscurity, but where we don’t have sources to say explicitly that it drifted into obscurity. Perhaps we have to leave the reader to infer it.

(3) I think the two-paragraph lead is also too short.

My second point is 1a – prose. I concur with the comment above that there are single sentences that are trying to achieve too much. Some examples are:

• ’An unflattering look at the life and business of the publishing tycoon William Randolph Hearst, it ascribed to Hearst what the New York Times would later describe as "fascist political ambitions ... abetted by an unholy alliance of big bankers".’ The length of this sentence produces a syntax problem whereby it reads like the New York Times is using the quoted words itself to describe big bankers.
• ’...part of what has been described as "a generational moral reaction against the perceived depredations of the monied class".’ This appendage to a long sentence could easily be separated into a separate sentence, thus giving you more freedom to attribute the quote to its author rather than using the loose “has been described as”.

I will re-visit prose later in this review. The prose certainly isn't a long way off Featured Article standard.

Those are the only two criteria that I think raise issues. The article is neutral and well-researched. I am able to vouch for the latter because I looked fairly deeply for post-1940 sources and, as above, could not find many. Syek88 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Some possible sources:

• This, which I have only glanced at. It seems to be a meta-analysis of the kind of stratification study that the book engages in, and might be useful for placing the book in context.
• This, which twice refers to Lundberg as a muckraker -- I don't know if Marcus is sufficiently important a scholar for this opinion to be included. It seems to be the George Marcus we have an article on. Of course you already have the epithet in the article, but it might be useful for support.

Searching Google Books for '"Ferdinand Lundberg" -inauthor:lundberg', to get rid of Lundberg's own works, I found more possibles, the first few of which are:

• Gibson, Donald. Communication, Power, and Media. Discussion starts on p. 11.
• Byrkit, James. Forging the Copper Collar. Not much content but like Marcus he refers to Lundberg as a muckraker (p. 278).
• Barlow, Aaron. Depression Era. Appears to be a collection of Depression Era documents, including a passage from the book; I can't see enough to know if there's any actual commentary.
• Phillips, Kevin. Wealth and Democracy. A couple of minor mentions; Phillips does actually use Lundberg's numbers, so he trusts them, it appears. He also calls him a muckraker.
• Here's an interesting one. The October 1968 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has an advertisement on page 49 that mentions an article or review that appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times which, according to the advertisement, describes "the tremendous counterattack" that met America's Sixty Families. From the ad I'm guessing this would be a review by Gerald W. Johnson of "The Rich and the Super-Rich". It's possible that there are no specifics in this review, but it would be good to check it out.
• Janowitz, Morris. The Last Half-Century. I think this is usable: it describes Lundberg's book as having been "discarded as dated, crude, and lacking in sound scholarship", which is a helpfully summative statement. Morris Janowitz seems to be prominent.

Do you have access to newspapers.com? I found some coverage there that might be useful if you haven't already looked at them.

I'm not ready to oppose on comprehensiveness, as these all seem pretty minor, but I'd like to get your take on these sources and whether they can be useful in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: This has been open for six weeks; there is no consensus to promote, and while there have been no opposes, concerns have been raised. These issues should be addressed and the article can be renominated after the usual 2 week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.