Talk:A. L. Burt/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Review

 * There doesn't appear to be any information from the Albert Bert mini-bio that is incorporated into the LEAD and the more general corporate, rather htan publishing history (e.g. its eras of relative success/struggles) also feels like it could use more coverage in the lead.
 * I've added a bit more, and made the order more chronological to account for the changes in business strategy. How does it look now?


 * I have some reservations for using the family geneology to support more than basic family history, for instance it seems that other sources could support the idea that "During this time Burt came to understand the market that existed for inexpensive artistic, literary, and household books, which many could not afford.". Not really a deal breaker just noting.
 * There's definitely some friction in using a family genealogy: On the one hand, there's an incentive for people to reinvent the stories of their lives, and on the other hand, it's straight from the horse's mouth, and who else would be interested in researching eight generations of Burts? I don't see another source for the line you quoted, which speaks to what Burt actually thought, so I've attributed it as according to the genealogy. Outside of the Albert Levi Burt subsection, the genealogy is cited four times. Two of these are also cited to independent works. I've changed the other times to According to the family genealogy, for this work he poured the entirety of his $900 savings into typesetting—providing for paper, printing, and binding on credit—and within ten years had sold some 250,000 copies., since I think this is an interesting detail, but also suffers from the danger of reinvention.


 * Is there any reason we need 3 sources for the birth of Edward Fuller Burt?
 * Removed one of them.


 * Perhaps should say "and according to a Brooklyn Daily Eagle obituary had a "retiring disposition" or otherwise name the source?
 * Went with according to an obituary in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle had a "retiring disposition"


 * Many years is a strange phrase to put in a quote imo. Like there's no euphemism here unless I'm missing something so why not just rephrase it for use without quotes?
 * I had quoted it to make clear that the uncertainty is in the source, but see your point. Changed it to just "years."


 * Does it make sense to use the inflation template to note what his estate value is in current dollars?
 * Done.


 * Since we have no article on the National Standard Dictionary can a short phrase indicating what it was be incorporated?
 * Added: His first publication was a reprint of The National Standard Dictionary, which contained some 40,000 words and 700 illustrative woodcuts.


 * No issues with redlinks in this article. From the ones I can evaluate through my own knowledge all seem like candidates for future articles and accept the notability of the remainders on good faith. I also think it highly likely of the non-linked authors would be notable but not enough to redlink them.
 * I've redlinked Levi Parker Wyman and Wilmer M. Ely, which I think are the only other two; not sure why I didn't before, I may have just overlooked them.
 * Glad I mentioned it. Barkeep49 (talk)


 * Do we have any indication why he "turned to paperback fiction"? I can infer it from other parts of the article but if sourcing supports might be worth saying it a bit more explicitly here.
 * Per the source, But Burt wanted to do something on a larger scale, and inexpensive paperback fiction was then in fashion, so he began a line called the Manhattan Library in the late 1880s. Based on this, I've changed the line in the article to Late in the 1880s Albert Burt turned to inexpensive paperback fiction, which was then popular and would allow him to extend his reach, with his Manhattan Library line of books.


 * I think "The final number" is unclear for those who don't understand how serialized publishing at this time worked.
 * Changed to "the final issue."


 * Was AL Burt privately held? You mention the 510 shares held by Burt and then his children. Were there any other shareholders of significance?
 * That has been my assumption, and I haven't seen anything that says otherwise. The source for that line (link) also suggests it (a note held by the company is said to be entirely "owned by the sons"), but I don't think it is definitive enough to state that outright.


 * I don't think Gowen's expertise is such that, even as a quote, we can state "—is considered "the best-known of all series with the war as its primary setting"
 * Rephrased: is one of the best-known series centered around the war
 * What is Gowen's background? Is he someone who could otherwise be considered an expert writing in a non-RS? If the answer to that is yes this rewording could work, otherwise we shouldn't be referencing to that source at all in my thinking. Barkeep49 (talk)
 * I'm not sure what his particular background is—he seems to be part of the Horatio Alger Society (link), which publishes the periodical at issue, Newsboy, and he has written more than 100 articles in it (link; link 2); both would seem to suggest a deep understanding of this subject matter. Gowen is a valuable source for this article, and is backed up by other sources. In fact, Gowen seems to be more accurate than what is written in sources such as Publishers Weekly, which tend to stay higher level and write a more loosely as a result. I think it's fair to expect that those who know must about the minutiae of juvenile series books and their publishers would be those who collect, research, and write about them; I don't have any reservations about using Gowen as a source, and I think this article would be hard to write otherwise.
 * So after thinking this over on the whole I clearly don't have an issue with using Gowen as a source about the company - it's why I didn't flag him more generally during my initial review. I do think he's not necessarily qualified to place the company in broader context and would suggest that this best known line be struck or else sourced to a more authoritative source. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point, removed.


 * "The series was termed a "soap opera" by whom?
 * Rephrased: The series was a veritable soap opera, with the many adventures of its protagonist including twenty-six kidnappings, seven attacks by wild animals, and three plane crashes.


 * After the sale did AL Burt continue as an imprint or basically anything it was publishing get taken over by Blue Ribbon and then Doubleday?
 * Added Blue Ribbon continued published some of A. L. Burt's titles, terming them "A Burt Book."


 * Why those works in the works published section? This section feels either incomplete or unnecesssary, with the sentence it has able to be merged into the corporate history.
 * These are largely taken from online lists, and from A. L. Burt's advertising (e.g., on the back of dust jackets). Ideally I'd like to make this list somewhere close to complete, although as you say it is not there yet. I think it's okay for now, since it is termed a partial list, but let me know if you have other ideas.
 * We have no "good list" standard to go from here, just good article and featured list. It clearly doesn't meet the latter standard but this isn't that. Since it is with-in the spirit of GA criteria 3 it makes sense to keep it, but I would say that it does need to be in alpha order (it is until the end when there are two which are out of order. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I'm actually going to remove the final three for now:The Vicomte de Bragelonne, Alexandre Dumas (1907) (added by ), along with Chesterfield's Letters and Representative Men (added by IPs). (Also pinging, who noted having "many specimens on hand", and may have some interest in this discussion/list.) It's unclear whether these books were standalone titles issued by A. L. Burt, or part of a line of books such as the Manhattan Library or Burt's Home Library; if the latter, I think it would make more sense to include the series, not the individual titles.


 * Just noting that I have access to most, but not all, of the sources used (including a couple of the non-linked ones) and take on good faith the use of the remaining sources without reservation given the examination of the sources I can access.

Discussion
Confirming you are still interested in going through the GA process for this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this, . Definitely still interested. —Usernameunique (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , great. I'll likely start to do this over the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a really well written article. My comments are above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Realized I forgot to respond properly, . Thanks for the detailed review! As you have seen, I've been approaching this is a somewhat piecemeal fashion as time permits, but should finish responding to all your comments within a couple days. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the review, . I believe I've responded to all your comments now. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sorry meant to do a final read through and it just slipped my mind. I think this is all set and I'm passing it now. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thanks again. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was truly my pleasure . It really was well written. But as long as we're here, I'm curious. Having done enough GA noms myself I've found some reviews helpful, some a checklist, and some frustrating. I am hopeful that my reviews fall in the helpful category but would welcome feedback from you if you feel it fell in a different category. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)