Talk:Joseph Dart/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 21:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Doug, i'll be happy to review this article (in fact, I have already made quite a few notes having done a pre-assessment over the past hour). I'll have something for you within the next few days, or sooner. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Review
Infobox
 * Any reason to not include spouse and children (which are valid parameters for "infobox person")


 * Country tends to be noted as "U.S."


 * Conflicting death date (see "death" section)

Lead
 * Living period is usually full dates (when known) and not just years


 * Could Erie Canal be linked here too?


 * Very short - is it a fair summary?

Biography - Paragraph 1
 * Why is this one section? Feels a bit too big and perhaps should be split (part of first paragraph could be used as "Early life" for instance)


 * Second sentence is a bit "and-y" - could we not condense and expand initial sentence like "..as the third son to Joseph and Sarah Dart"?


 * I may be overlooking something, but how is "received his initial schooling at the local public schools" a suitable paraphrase of "received a good education" from the source? "Initial" implies that there should be something subsequent noted, while "local public schools" seems assumed but not stated explicitly


 * Two successive sentences end "in 1821"; can we not combine or flow so this only needs noting once?


 * The part which starts discussing going in to business with Stocking would be a suitable start for another section


 * "under 2,000 residents" - any reason to round this up from the perfectly reasonable "1,800" noted by the source?

- Paragraph 2
 * "Chief Red Jacket.." - I feel a brief expansion on who this is would help to give a little context (even if just adding "Seneca orator of the Wolf clan.." as per his article, as an example)


 * Last sentence seems quite long without any break, but could also be trimmed. How about: "Dart became known as a trusted businessman and a popular story in biographical notes is that Native American tribe members visiting Buffalo would often hand their valuables into his care for safekeeping." - this is just an example, but flows a bit easier (still a tad long, but not as much)


 * On the sourcing, ref2 implies it was only Chief Red Jacket, though the book ref does seem to suggest members (numerous). As both sources are used at the paragraph end, it seems a bit conflicting (I expand upon this in "References" further down)

- Paragraph 3
 * On the opening sentence: was it Dart who developed grain trading as a result of the canal, or had this started and Dart "jumped on the bandwagon" (so to speak)?


 * "..lucrative that what.." - "than"?


 * I see another editor split the sentence about the building of the grain elevator and the designer, however I feel that your original combined structure worked better (particularly as the next sentence starts "he" and it should follow a preceding sentence about the person it relates to, which currently, erroneously suggests that is Robert Dunbar)


 * As well as this, the following sentence about his own elevator (Dart's Elevator), could easily be included in the first sentence (e.g. In 1842, Dart financed the building of the first steam-powered grain elevator in the world, known as Dart's Elevator). Perhaps instead of or as well as the above suggested amalgamation.


 * "..a time-consuming costly process" - I don't see specific mention in the ref to the manual approach being time consuming and costly. Although I could believe both being credible, is this a stated fact or a reasonable assumption?

- Paragraph 4
 * 75% of this is about a report related to a schooner. My only concern here is that it doesn't relate specifically to the individual, but rather an achievement of his concept. I can't see the ref source, though I would wonder if a more appropriate place for this prose is in your other article Dart's Elevator? Maybe as the concept itself was beneficial to the industry it's worth inclusion, though I think it should be condensed if so.


 * Last sentence doesn't flow too well. As with another example above, maybe some rephrasing would be useful. I also don't understand the usage of "wished" in this sentence (wished implies he would have liked, so sounds hypothetical rather than being actual).

- Paragraph 5
 * "..where Dart's grain elevator building once stood" - I think some context here would help, as it assumes the reader already knows it doesn't exist by this point. I understand it burned down c1863.


 * "It developed as a mechanical solution to the obstacle of raising grain.." - Huh? What obstacle(s)? Prior to this, a manual approach was not so much an obstacle than just less efficient, surely?


 * "The city surpassed Odessa, Russia, London, England, and Rotterdam, Holland" - the sentence makes it look like there is a list of 5 localities, rather than 3 cities and their respective country. Would Odessa in Russia, London in England.. etc, work better?


 * Maybe use the US-GDP inflation deflator for this one (and no need to explicitly state the contemporary year, as you would always want it present-day relevant which is the default output)


 * "..instrument of commerce.. - I know this is taken verbatim from the ref, though not sure it works as an inclusion in the sentence


 * "second in importance only to the steamboat and locomotive" - that's quite a bold statement, but is/was it a generally accepted public opinion, or that of an individual?

Family
 * Page 17 of Mingus book suggests several of his seven children died young. It may benefit to note this, as it could otherwise be assumed that his larger-than-average house was for a family of up to nine, which doesn't seem to be the case


 * Ref 20 "Remembrance - Joseph Dart" suggests he had a brother who was a judge and president of the bank. Is he worth a mention?

Death
 * When did he die? 27th (infobox) or 28th (this section)? The newspaper seems to suggest "shortly after 12:00am" on day before 29th, so 28th would be credible


 * "Greatest legacy" - greatest among what?


 * ..revolutionized.. - according to..?

References
 * Ref 3 (www.buffalohistorygazette.net) seems to be a blog - how reliable a source is this? It's used quite extensively.
 * ✅ Researched this question out extensively and the parts referenced for a source are that of historian Jerry M. Malloy. Yes, he is a good reliable source. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Some paragraphs or sections have multiple refs at the end. For instance, the 2nd paragraph has 3 refs which imply that all 3 refs fully support the entirety of the contents. Is this the case, or would the refs be better suited inline? In all instances, are the multiple refs fully relevant to the text they're appended to?

Conclusion
A relatively short article, though as its predominantly using digialised versions of former offline historic sources, then this isn't too unusual. The article doesn't offer anything beyond the onset of the 20th century. Although anything specific to the apparatus itself would rightly go in its respective article, did his legacy have an impact beyond 1900?

Broadly speaking, it probably just about covers enough of him personally, although some parts are not necessarily suitable in this article. I have made my suggestions above, including further sectioning, sentence restructuring and fact checking. There may be some things I have missed that would become more apparent after a restructure, though I have tried to highlight anything that stands out to me.

In terms of the GA criteria, I have some concerns over #1 (relatively minor, a few examples are aforementioned), #2 (referencing and OR) and #3 (though may just scrape). I am happy to hold this though for you to absorb my comments, or indeed query anything further if you want clarity (or indeed, dispute). Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for review. I'll start working on resolving the issues tomorrow, after a good night's sleep. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That was fairly quick I must say. I shall reassess within the next 1-2 days and let you know. If I see anything minor or trivial, i'll most likely adjust myself; only if something requires some investigation or where you may hold a different view would I bring it back to the review page. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You have done well in making the suggested amendments which I feel has improved the article. My only further observations:
 * Perhaps you could take another look at the lead. Mainly, that it essentially opens by explaining his learning of various languages which, while perfectly acceptable to make note of in the prose, is perhaps not appropriate to open a lead with. I also think this extent of lead information is too excessive. For this article specifically, it should go straight into what he is known for and primarily why he is notable. Other business experience and activities should go after (ideally, in a different paragraph)


 * The lead can also have a passing mention of his family and when he died, which is entirely omitted


 * I am unconvinced by having a single section titled "mid life". When multiple paragraphs discuss his early business ventures, his notable career in the grain industry and impact to the area of Buffalo, I do think this needs further sectioning. "Mid life", while not erroneous, is far too non-specific.

I will probably do any further minor copy editing myself in the meantime, or once you have considered the above. I did make a slight correction yesterday to the date of death in the lead. It's nice you managed to find another photo as well, as I appreciate it can be tough finding images of relevance, particularly on articles of individuals who lived well over a century ago. I am keen to wrap this up for you, so if you could consider my above points then we can try and get moving towards a conclusion. Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * These additional issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You will have observed that I have made some edits myself, mostly minor c/e, though also to (re)address some of my review suggestions. On an overall before/after comparison, I think that the particularly noticeable differences are to the lead and main prose structure, with relevant sections now rather than just all clumped in together. Anyhow, well done on this and for reacting swiftly to address my comments. I am happy that it's within the GA criteria and is fairly a "good" article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)