Wikipedia

Talk:William Rath/GA1

< Talk:William Rath
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Wasted Time R in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago59 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 21:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply


I have begun reviewing this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Neat article, but a few basic facts missing and presentation needs improvement

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Significant issues with duplicate and out-of-order presentation, also some MoS issues, see below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Some basic facts missing, some additional points could be covered, see below
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Additional images would be good, see below
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Re the infobox and lede:

In terms of a German-American businessman, did Rath become an American citizen at some point? If so, it should just say 'American businessman' in the first sentence, per MOS:ETHNICITY (it can mention his German origin later in the lede if it's important). And it would be good to include when the citizenship was gained in the article body. Or did he stay a German citizen his whole life? That's what the Nationality field of the infobox seems to be saying. In that case, he wasn't German-American, he was just a German expatriot living in America.

and philanthropist. He was a leader in raising funds for local and charitable causes. Mention of this does not appear anywhere in the article body, unless I missed it, and thus it needs a source.

'William' sounds like an Anglicized name. Was it originally Wilhelm? In that case it should be included in the lede; also there is a birth name field in the infobox that could be used.

'Banker' and 'Manufacturer' are occupations but they are usually not titles, which they are listed as in the infobox.

Didn't he die at home in Ludington? Why does the infobox say Mason County?

Re Early life and education:

What was his father's occupation – sounds like it had something to do with construction?

If known, it would help to give his father's date of death and the date his mother moved to America – that would help make clearer what happened. The way this reads now, it kind of suggests the two of them separated, which I don't think is the intent.

What made William decide to leave Germany for the United States? Why did he pick Ludington – was there extended family there already, or a large German immigrant community in the area?

  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Re the Business career, Memberships and affiliations, and Personal life sections: The biggest problem with the article is that it's difficult to get a narrative flow of what happened in his life. For example, it's only on my third read-through of it that I realized that he got married less than a month after arriving in Ludginton! What is the story behind that – did they know each other in Germany and both came to America? Or a whirlwind romance? Or an arranged mariage?

There is a lot of duplication – one section has Rath was the mayor of Ludington for a while. and another section has Rath was the mayor of Ludington from 1910 to 1911. Similarly, the information about his being a collector of customs and a member of the board of trade is presented in two different sections. There is a list of businesses he was involved in, that in most cases duplicates mentions of the same businesses just a couple of paragraphs earlier. And there is chronological confusion – I initially thought the Goldsborough scam ruined him towards the end of his life, but actually that occurred before he founded a bank and before he became mayor. A mention of a battle over his estate is given two sections before he dies. A mention that he was a member of the Republican Party is considered personal, when he was a political official of the town. And so forth.

So I would take everything in these three sections and combine them into one section and present them in narrative chronological order. That's how a normal biography would be written. I know lots of WP articles have "Personal life" sections but in cases like this I think they are actually harmful. In a small town, everything is connected with everything else. Who you marry, what church you belong to, what town boards you are part of, what political party you affiliate with, what businesses you run, what charities you contribute to ... everything is interrelated and what happens at time T in any of these areas can affect what happens at time T + 1 in any of these other areas.

Regarding some specific items:

When he became mayor, was he elected by the town or selected by a town council? If the former, are there election results available? Did he have any significant accomplishments during his mayoralty?

Manistee Watch Company, Star Watch Case Company – what was his role in thee? They are the two businesses in the list that are not described elsewhere in the text, unless I missed it.

Miss Lucy Rickhoff – the 'Miss' should be dropped.

Around 1890, he suffered a large financial loss after falling victim to a fraudulent copper mining investment scam perpetrated by Mr. Goldsborough. [3][9] – There's a space between the period and the first footnote. Goldsborough needs a first name, not "Mr." Ideally there should be some description of who Goldsborough was and how the experienced Rath managed to get duped. And what was the consequence of this loss? Did Rath lose some of his businesses?

His estate was the subject of two lawsuits. - lawsuits from whom, and over what, and how were they resolved?

Re the Legacy section: which was 100 blocks south of Ludington Avenue - is this a typo? I looked at an online map and I only counted about 30 blocks in all of Ludington.

Regarding images: An image taken for Commons of the Fountain of Youth mural would be good, even if it's in background on an incidental inclusion basis to avoid the rights issues.


An image taken for Commons of the cemetery entrance or the Rath masoleum would be good and could avoid some of the Find-a-grave dispute (see next).

In terms of references:

What is the Cartier entry in the Bibliography for? Is it used in a citation anywhere? And if so, isn't this a normal newspaper article and shouldn't it be handled like all the other newspaper articles, i.e. not be in the Bibliography?

There's an '[importance?]' tag in Note A that needs to be resolved. That note points to fn 17 which incorporates a Find-a-grave reference, which has previously led to some name-calling between two editors (neither of them you) on the Talk page. The official line is that Find-a-grave usage is limited to the External links section, per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In this case I tend to side with allowing this usage in fn 17, but the best course of action would be to find some other source about Rath's involvement in Cartier Memorial Park and use that as the source. And is that name Cartier Memorial Cemetery (Note A) or Cartier Memorial Park (infobox)?

fn 2 42 –43 has an embedded space.

fn 6 has a text quote appended to it, which is unnecessary since none of the other citations are doing that, and also confusing since this source is cited six times and presumably only one of those instances is related to the quote.

fn 18 has a missing period at the end.

For Category:People from Manistee, Michigan, did he actually live in Manistee, or did he just own property there? If the former, there needs to be something in the article text that supports inclusion in this category. If the latter, the category isn't appropriate.

Why inclusion in Category:People of the Michigan Territory? Both his birth and his coming to the U.S. came after Michigan became a state. Maybe this was a copy-paste leftover from some other article used as a starting point for this one?

I think Category:Businesspeople in timber should be added.

If it turns out he became an American citizen, Category:19th-century American businesspeople should be added. On the other hand, if he stayed a German citizen, then Category:German expatriates in the United States should be added.

In sum: Just to be clear, I like this article. I like reading about people like this, people who showed up in some small town and became substantial figures who left a legacy behind. It happened all over America back in that era. And I also realize that you may already be pressed against the limit of what sources are available on this person. If some of the things that I suggested for addition cannot be found, then that's the way it is. But I do think that reorganizing the article along chronological lines would be a significant benefit, regardless of how many additional sources can be located. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

It definitely looks better now. Some follow-up/further comments:

a German ex-patriot - the word is 'expatriate' (I botched this in my previous comment above). More importantly, did you find a source that explicitly states that he never became an American citizen? From today's perspective, it's odd that he was able to hold office, and be elected mayor, as a foreign national. For instance, I believe that only a few states currently allow green card holders to hold office. Was it less unusual then?


If you are linking 'philanthropist' in the lede, you should also link lumber baron and business magnate.

He was a long-term city council member – this is not stated or sourced in the article body. (I missed this the first time around.) Is this something separate he did or a confusion with his county board of supervisors position?

  •   Done - Done both at the same time. While he belonged to the county board of supervisors he ALSO was a member of the Ludington Board of Trade. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your "Done" responses aren't always clear in cases where no changes were made. Did you determine that 'William' was his original name in Germany, or are there no sources which speak to it one way or the other?

Why are 'Banker' and 'Manufacturer' appropriately considered as titles?

Why is the text quote still in fn 9, when it is cited from multiple places and no other footnotes have text quotes? In other cases I'll just assume that no sources speak to a point raised.

He grew up in Hamburg, – this is awkward/redundant where it is – can be moved earlier and combined with Rath attended public schools in Hamburg.

He then assisted his father as a stonemason. - your response says that his father was a stonemason, but this wording suggests that William was employed as a stonemason which helped his father in some unspecified way. Needs to be reworded for clarity.

perpetrated by Mr. Goldsborough – if sources don't have a first name, this should be changed to "a man named Goldsborough", since the MoS says not to use 'Mr.'

They also founded – This is potentially confusing, since my eye associated it with the just-above The two formed of Rath and Cartier. Would be safer to write "Rath and Wing also founded ...".

He was a supporter of the Republican Party – from what you've added, it sounds like he ran for office as a Republican. In which case this should say "He belonged to the ...", which is stronger than 'supporter of'.

his Democrat opponent - First, there needs to be a link to Democratic Party (United States) here. Second, it might be argued that the Democrat Party (epithet) was not yet active in the 1910s and that some publications used it back then in a non-pejorative way, but why risk annoying half your readership?

in south beach Epworth Heights – is 'south beach' necessary here? The article on the resort doesn't mention it. If it should stay, maybe "on the south beach at Epworth Heights" would read better?

He was the first president the resort's – missing an "of".

The William Rath Building, which was in the 100 block – Since this building is still standing, I think this should be stated in present tense.

Regarding the photo showing the mural, I think it shows too much of the mural and would be considered a violation of the copyright that is presumably held by Therese Soles. I had in mind something taken from considerably further away, that shows the setting in which the mural appears, but the mural itself is small enough that it does not require permission of the painter. See Commons:De minimis for some examples.

  •   Working O.K. I understand. I live walking distance from that mural and will take some pictures today that I believe will be more in mind of what you were thinking of. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done - replaced image with one that is farther away that shows the surrounding setting.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, as I said, definite improvements are being made. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

A few items:

Thanks for the explanation of the evidence regarding German citizenship. It's not absolutely definitive, but I agree it's what you need to go with. But you still need to do the spelling correction to 'expatriate'.

I'm still not clear your explanation about the city council. Was that the same as the Ludington Board of Trade? If so, you need to make that clear, since normally those are two different functions. Right now, your first reference to the board is Rath was the president of the Ludington Board of Trade and regularly reported on the freighter traffic in the harbor. That sounds like what a Board of Trade member would do. Then later you have Rath was a member of the Ludington Board of Trade from its beginning.[12] For two years, he was its president. If that's the same board as the previous mention, you should consolidate them. Or is this the city council? Normally a city council is the legislative body for making laws governing all aspects of life in the town, not just economic or trade aspects.

To better keep the image monitors happy, I would suggest changing the caption of the last image to something like "A stretch of N. Rath Avenue in Ludington; the Therese Soles mural of Rath can be seen between two buildings". The idea of Commons:De minimis is that it's not the primary subject of the image.

I guess I now know which way Mason County leans politically. But if you get enough viewership, someone somewhere will change it down the line ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'm trying to unscramble this. According to fn 3, the Mason County History Companion site that is reprinting the A History of northern Michigan and its people entry, it looks to me like Rath was a member of three separate and distinct entities:

  1. "He has been identified with the Ludington Board of Trade during virtually the entire period of its existence and was its president for two years"
  2. "For ten years he was a member of the board of aldermen of Ludington"
  3. "He ... represented Ludington county as a member of the county board of supervisors"

Assuming no other sources contradict any of this, I think that all three entities should be mentioned in the lede and then all three should be stated and sourced in the article body. This got previously conflated because you had a long-term city council member in the lede, which didn't clearly match anything in the body, and Rath belonged to the Mason county board of supervisors (Board of Aldermen) for ten years in the body, which combined two different positions. I suggest using the 'board of aldermen' term instead of 'city council', just to be consistent with the actual names of the position back then, and say he was on that for ten years, and then separately talk about his membership on the county board of supervisors, which was for an unknown duration. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looks good, I am passing for GA. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Rath/GA1&oldid=982226457"