Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Brook Farm/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Brook Farm

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 hope to nominate it for FA soon. Please note, though it's nice to have suggested improvements in the nitty-gritty details of the prose, that is not the purpose of requesting a peer review. I am asking if other editors think this article is comprehensive, neutral, and ready for FA candidacy. For example, some questions arose in a Good Article review months ago that the article is one-sided and fails to present a realistic description of the Brook Farm society. Thanks in advance! Midnightdreary (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: You have requested that the review concentrate on (a) comprehensiveness, (b) neutrality and (c) readiness for FAC. As to (a), I found the article generally comprehensive, although some information was either missing or not clarified. As to (b), I am satisfied as to neutrality apart from the odd sentence which may need rephrasing just to be sure. As to (c), I can only judge that by doing what you say is not your purpose in requesting this review, namely by looking at the nitty-gritty of the prose. I have done this for the lead and first two sections, and have identified numerous prose issues requiring attention in these parts. A similar careful reading will be necessary for the remainder of the article before you can consider FAC.

A few general questions:-

  • Am I right in thinking that some members of the Brook Farm community were shareholders while others not? Apart from shareholders being entitled to share in profits (if any), were there differences between them and the non-shareholders, or were all treated and paid the same?
No, that's not a correct assumption (other than children). Does it imply that somewhere? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say the school was the main and at times only source of income, but I don't remember seeing any indication of the extent of its earnings.
I don't remember seeing anything specific in my research, unfortunately. Then again, since the community never turned a profit, I can't imagine it's too exciting. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not clear about what happened to plans to acquire two newspapers. It appears that these plans fell through, but it's not explained why. Was Harbinger started as alternative, and why was the name Harbinger chosen?
The plans did not fall through at all. If you look, both were combined to create The Harbinger. I think the title was chosen based on the symbolism. Other than that, I don't think there's much info here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spirits remained high throughout the experiment, regardless of the community's financial standing." I realise that this comment is cited to a source, but did the source make this statement with no qualification? It seems just a bit too Pollyanna-ish.
You're not the first to notice this. The truth is: Brook Farmers were very happy there. All I've read about them make it sound like an idyllic paradise, other than financial issues. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues, mainly prose:

  • Lead
    • "The joint stock company" should, at this stage, be "A joint stock company"
  • Should "portion" be "proportion"? Even so, "a [pro]portion of the profits for an equal share of the work" isn't altogether clear. Should it be an equal share of the profits for an equal share of the work?
Well, no... As I understand it, Brook Farmers were welcome to purchase more than one share. So, one person who owned, say, five shares got more of the profits than a person who owned only one share. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...from farming and selling handmade products" should be "from farming and from selling..." etc
  • "through a fee" should be "from fees"
  • "Primarily, however, the main source..." Rephrase to avoid redundancy (don't need "primarily" and "main source")
  • "By 1844" should be "In 1844"
  • "by 1847" should be "in 1847"
Neither of these dates are as concrete as this wording would imply; Fourierism had a slow crawl into it, and the final closure was just as nebulous. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planning and background

  • "Background and planning" would be a better title
Such as...? Maybe just "Background" is enough? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would be called...was based" contains a tenses inconsistency - future then past
  • 84 doesn't seem like an approximation, more like an exact figure
Yeah, that's an odd one but the number is by one person's count; even he would admit he probably didn't find them all. I'll change it to at least 80. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "active throughout the 1840s" - active where?
  • "rest of the society"; should be "rest of society"
  • The "As he said" introduction to the sentence is not necessary
  • "bookshop" is one word

Beginnings

  • A few points about organisation:-
    • $500 shares sold to each of 10 investors who were each promised 5% of profits - that's 50% of profits accounted for. Who got the rest?
None, for two reasons:
    • "Shareholders were also allowed a single vote in decision-making and many held director positions." "single" is redundant.
Not really. Some people owned multiple shares, but it did not earn them extra votes. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the two halves of the above sentence are joined by "and", but appear unrelated.
Err...? How do you figure? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Many" can only be a small number out of 10 - wouldn't "several" be better?
    • Also, since we're only in the planning stage we can't say "held"; "were to hold", perhaps?
Well, if you notice, the planning happens some time before the place is actually founded. So it seems likely that they already "held" shares. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They began raising money, including holding a meeting at Peabody's book shop to raise $10,000 for the farm's initial purchase." What was the nature of this fundraising activity? Holding a meeting in a bookshop doesn't seem like specific fundraising. Were they seeking gifts, donations, etc?
You may not know much about the Peabody bookstore, which was like the American Bloomsbury in New England for a time. This was a specific meeting to discuss the plans and ask for money, just like the sentence implies. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a neighboring Keith farm..." That sounds as though there were several Keith farms and they bought one of them. I think you need to say something like: "..a neighboring farm from the Keith family", or something like that.
  • I think you should say in this section when and why it was decided to call the community "Brook Farm" (you do give this information later)
  • Despite the link, you need to introduce Margaret Fuller. Perhaps : "Women's rights activist Margaret Fuller..."
  • Clarification: were all new investors still being offered 5% shares of the profits?
As far as I know. The business model doesn't seem to be discussed in these sources after the initial set-up. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last line: check MOS for correct usage of ellipses.
That's a quote. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you will consider these points. I think it is clear that to reach FAC prose standards the article will need a full copyedit. It's not that the prose is bad, it's just unpolished in places. Now, I enjoyed the article and I enjoy copyediting, and would offer to do this, but it might be a week before I get to it. Perhaps you'd rather get someone else to do it (I won't be hurt) but my offer stands. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to a couple (for those that I didn't respond to, I likely just took the advice and didn't feel a response was needed). I'm sure the FAC will help with the prose; for now, I was looking for a more conceptual overview of the article. I didn't mean to imply that suggestions were unwelcome, but that pointing out a couple typos wouldn't help me know if it's ready for FAC. This sort of prosaic response is very, very helpful. So, thanks for this review; I think it really helps give me an idea of where this article stands! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points:-
  • It's not the function of FAC to "help with the prose". That is the job of PR, hence my offer to help. You are supposed to be as sure as possible that the article meets the FA criteria before you nominate it. Taking it to FAC knowing that the prose needed attention would be much frowned on.
  • Some of your responses, above, seem a bit short. For example, when I mentioned the Peabody bookstore you reacted as though I ought to know all about this. It is surely for you to explain things in the article, not to assume levels of readers' prior knowledge. Also, your last response "that's a quote": I know it's a quote, I was pointing out that your uses of ellipses does not conform with MOS, which requires spaces on both sides of the ellipsis. If your reply means that you have reproduced the sentence exactly as it is configured in the source, then you should say so.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean to imply that I have no interest whatsoever in the prose until the FAC stage. I was only sincerely responding to the section that says "I have listed this article for peer review because..." Again, your prose suggestions are more than welcome - I had every intention of more deeply looking at it before taking it to FAC; I would hate to be "frowned upon" after all (sorry, but your response sounds condescending and a bit like I'm being lectured for being naughty). As far as the Peabody bookstore: to me, it seems like one of those things that everyone knows, but I'm sort of a specialist. I'm still not convinced it needs to be expanded upon; where an early fundraiser was held seems on the outskirts of this article's focus. As far as the ellipsis, I didn't realize that I had to make it clear that I "have reproduced the sentence exactly as it is configured in the source" any more than by putting it in quotes. What more should be done? --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram comments: You've obviously put a lot of work into the article, and it looks great. Have not carefully read. But I note, among your sources, that the NRHP/NHL application document was missing. These are available online for almost all NHL sites. I just added a link to it, and to the NHL webpage for the site (which is good documentation of NHL designation date, though not that helpful otherwise). I think the application document should have some useful material for you. I just used it to add the area of the site (188 acres) to the infobox. The author visited the site in 1975 and took photos that are actually public domain, too. The photos are included in the accompanying photos PDF, and are not great quality, and probably adding them to the article would not help. But they are available individually from the National Park Service's Focus website, if you want to add one or two.

You may want to reformat those two references. About formatting the NHL webpage reference, there's some discussion within current Fort Ticonderoga FAC nomination (at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fort Ticonderoga/archive1). And Joseph Priestley House is a FA with both types of references included, and a good model article to consider for other matters too.

I opened a section titled "Preservation". Perhaps "Recent history" would be a better title, or it could be dropped as a separate section, but some more about the site today would be helpful i think (again, i haven't read the article carefully though). Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for adding that info - I don't think of it as a historic site first and foremost so it completely slipped my mind. I moved your addition to the "After Brook Farm" section, as it seems to make more sense than adding a separate heading just for that sentence. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Brook_Farm/archive1&oldid=289225761"