Wikipedia:Peer review/William Robinson Brown/archive1

William Robinson Brown

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA or possibly FA status, but need fresh eyes to see how it flows, if there are errors or problems that could derail the GA/FA process.

The citation templates are using the new WP:SFN format, I had help from another editor on those, but my eyesight is not good and thus I have a tendency toward typos and other formatting hiccups ( { and [ look the same to me in the edit box).

Also useful to see if the horse info is readable to non-horse people.

Thanks, Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this for DYK and would say that it's pretty close to GA status. The lead should probably be about two paragraphs longer given the length of the article. As a non-horse person, I needed to look up what the asterisks in front of the horse's names meant. Perhaps a note explaining that would be helpful. You might consider a separate section or subsection for the books he authored. Also make sure that pp. is being used for multiple pages and p. for single pages. I tried looking for free images of Brown, but couldn't find any. Some reviewers may frown upon multiple fair-use images. All in all, this is looking good. Interesting article - it must have been devastating for him to lose his horses. Cheers, Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 06:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the walkthrough. Yes, I ripped out my hair trying to find a free image; plenty of horses, not of him. I will find a source on the asterisk thing and put it in a small, discreet note. We get that question a lot. I can look for more info on the books, the Horse of the Desert is raved about in the Arabian horse literature, but I don't know if it has any outside reviews. I had no idea he even wrote the forestry treatise until I started this article and looked him up in WorldCat. Do you have ideas how I could expand the section on the books? I can probably get a copy of the Arabian book, no clue if the forestry work is anywhere to be found, and even if it is, I think it would be OR for me to do the review of it anyway, right?? Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My words failed me there. I just meant to say that the bulleted pair of books could be under a section header (level 2 or 3) reading "Bibliography" or "Works". Details on Horse of the Desert would be most welcome, though, if there are any to be found. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 07:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to pop in what you mean and let me take a look-see at it. My brain is too full of mush today to visualize what you are trying to tell me... Montanabw^(talk) 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Churn and change:

The lead is a summary of what is in the body text and so should have nothing not in the body text (see WP:LEAD). So you might want to move the "one of the most knowledgeable . . ." part and its reference citation to the main body. The Maynesboro stud ownership part seems to be already repeated and cited in the main body.
"Brown Company": The 100% reference implies they had joint control before. If so, that should be stated.
"Brown Company": The quote on leading the Brown company to international prominence can be paraphrased; will improve flow of reading.
"Foundation Stock": Too many details (uncited, though that isn't my objection) on the Blunt family; focus should stay on the subject. The take on Lady Wentworth seems non-neutral; you should attribute this subjective perception. So, Brown thought Lady Wentworth was . . . or "According to Andrew S. Steen, Lady Wentworth was . . ."
"Foundation Stock": What's up with the "*" before the horse's name?
Images: The lead image likely won't survive the fair-use test; hard to argue his image is integral to understanding the text. The 1919 image is actually public domain (all images published before 1923 in the US are) and should be moved to WikiCommons. That doesn't need a fair-use rationale and can be moved as the lead image. Technically a photo has to be published before 1923, not just taken before that time, but I think you can get away with that.
General: Very little about his personal life. Just one mention of his wife, but not even the name is there. There is an obituary of him at http://berlinnhhistoricalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/The_Brown_Bulletin_V4_No2_Sept_1955.pdf with more information on him, including his family. Since the company was no longer owned by him, that can be considered a reliable source (per Wikipedia a tertiary source, but in this case pretty much a secondary source). The photos there are also helpful; unless they renewed the copyright, those photos (like all such photos before 1964) are in the public domain. If you are interested in pulling some of those in, pls let me know: I can tell you where to check for copyright extensions.
Takeway: Ready for GA review.

Thanks for the input! My answers, with some additional comment:

Yeah, a bit more work on the lead is probably needed, though there is a loophole for single-appearing facts in the lead to be cited, it is cleaner to do it the other way. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find source material on the precise nature of the ownership change; WW Brown was one of the original founders, along with non-family members, then eventually the family (I cannot locate names of other major family stockholders, though) gains full control. I'd be really thrilled to find a source that can help me with this. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Blunt family is complicated and needs some note, and yes, it appears to be Brown's view; I'll try to clarify that. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The asterisk (*) means the horse was imported. Common parlance in Arabian (and I think Thoroughbred) breeding circles. I think a note is best so that it doesn't detract from flow of text Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image will survive Fair Use for GA, but if we can somehow obtain the version from the Obit, it's better quality ;-) But: can you verify that the 1919 image WAS published before 1923? I'd love to move it there if it is. I DO have to verify it was published for commons, though; I tried a "taken before 1923 but we can't verify publication" argument with the folks over at Commons on a different article and got slapped down so fast it made my head spin! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool that you found the Obit! But where is the source for the "Okayness" of pre-1964 images, thought it was 1923 ? (And NOW I know where everyone else found the images! Hooray! Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright law for pre-1964 images is, from Public domain in the United States: "Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form on or after January 1, 1923, and prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term." That part is accurate; I have checked elsewhere. To check if copyright was renewed, you can search for the title of the journal/magazine here - http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First If that shows up no results, you can claim PD on WikiCommons. For the image taken a year before his death, you can claim this was the first publication known. Churn and change (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]