Wikipedia:Peer review/Sheldon Dick/archive1

Sheldon Dick
This is a new article on a very obscure, very strange historical figure. I would be interested in any comments, but I'm particularly eager to get feedback on a few specific issues: Thanks very much. I'll be around off and on for the next few days. Chick Bowen 02:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead is very tricky. It's hard to say what Dick is notable for because, basically, he isn't.  The murder-suicide (if that's what it was) is often mentioned (on the rare occasions you see his name in histories of photography, he is often referred to as "infamous" or "notorious"), so I thought it should be in there, but the actual details are so murky that I don't think I can characterize it more specifically then I have.  This is a very tricky issue (and recall, please, that this is not all that long ago and his children are probably still alive), so I'd really appreciate help with that.
 * 2) The formatting of the article is a little unusual: I wanted to include the images in the body, since (as I say in the article) they're the only evidence available of where he was between 1937 and 1938. Could I format it any better?  Wiki-wizardry would be helpful; I think my intentions for that section are reasonably clear, but there may be a better way to present it.
 * 3) Obviously the "Death" section was tough to write and any suggestions would be great.


 * It's an interesting article and you've certainly tried hard.
 * Thanks! It was an interesting challenge.
 * Since you've gone to the length of locating stories in the NYT, I presumed that you'd have already found any odd mention of Dick in any of the books in "my" library -- and anyway the two most promising of these aren't on the shelves right now.
 * There's very little out there. I'm still looking for stuff.
 * Boring stuff first. You've used footnotes, which surely should be titled "Notes", not "References". Because they're in order of occurrence in the article, not alphabetical order, I can't think of any reason why the authors' names should be inverted. I'd switch them back, so that what's now note 7 will start "Herbert K. Russell, Edgar...".
 * Yeah, you're right. I don't know why I did it this way; I usually don't.
 * Dick supported himself through a series of literary and artistic endeavors -- but the rest of the article suggests, or says, almost the reverse: that his inherited wealth supported his literary and artistic endeavors.
 * Indeed--by "through" I just meant "during." As you say, it sounds like the opposite of what I mean.
 * Dick was active as a publisher: Aside from the one book, how?
 * A good question. As I say, he set up a partnership with Louis Rubsamen.  But whether that actually led to any books I haven't been able to determine.
 * If the "mistakes" in Serpent are worth mentioning, they're worth at least a minimal description. (Typos, perhaps?) Ditto for the "poor judgement": Poor judgement in not having it proofed adequately, in overpricing it, or what?
 * Yep, will fill this in.
 * I don't understand the quote by Stryker that you've used as a quasi-epitaph: the very last sentence of the article. As I look at it in its original context, I very tentatively start to infer that Stryker means "It was one of the worst cases I've known of a wealthy son who was valued merely for being an easy mark." But I wonder about the value of what Stryker's saying in this area. Consider one of your quotes as followed by something you omit: He shot himself, or he shot his wife, and one of the kids and himself. But it's one of the things I'm sorry didn't happen because I looked forward to it, I mean it would be a wonderful thing that you could help a guy -- I haven't a clue what the second part (from "But") means; have you? -- Hoary 13:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not ecstatic about ending with it. The whole Stryker interview is a bit incoherent, though awfully interesting.  I think what Stryker means by the "wealthy son" bit is that Dick was never able to make something of himself on his own--at least, that's how I took it.  I believe the "wonderful thing" that he's "sorry didn't happen" is, in general, Dick's continued work for the FSA, and specifically the silicosis film.  One of the things I found rather poignant in writing this is that Stryker evidently didn't know the film had actually been made.
 * Thanks very much for your comments; these are very helpful, and I'll get to work. Chick Bowen 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I need more resources, clearly; I'm going to the library on Monday and will dig deeper and see what I can find. Chick Bowen 15:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)