Wikipedia:Peer review/The Bread-Winners/archive1

The Bread-Winners
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to nom it at FAC and would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

 * the former secretary to Abraham Lincoln and future Secretary of State - is "future" the best term? A particularly thick reader could expect Hay to be coming back as a zombie or something for the 2016 election. Perhaps "who later became"
 * Link anti-labor to Labour movement? (x2)
 * I think that might be a bit excessive. Is anyone going to follow that link?
 * A couple, probably. Considering how central this is to the narrative, I'd give it greater priority than if this was, say, an article on some individual who spent a day with a workers union but quit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * in figuring out who the author was - Would "determining the author's identity" or something similar be more formal?
 * some guessed right - is there a more formal term?
 * I'm inclined to let that one stand, as it parallels the Gilder comment later in the article. And the bottom line is, they really were guessing.  They had evidence but no proof.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * is best remembered today - what does "today" add to the sentence? Since you're using the simple present tense, it's implied
 * (a city intended to be Cleveland) - unless Hay is explicit, this should be cited
 * the sop of chairman - the sop?
 * "Old Saul Matchin and me come to an agreement about time and pay, and both of us was suited. Ef he's got his heel into me, I don't feel it," - direct quote needs a citation. Mind, could be trimmed without hurting the article
 * being roughed up -- --> attacked?
 * Bott and Sleeny are captured by the force; the former is sent to prison but Farnham has pity on Sleeny as a good workman, and he serves only a few days. - Perhaps make it clearer that Sleeny gets a lighter sentence and not Farnham
 * ignores the law - link Jury nullification or Jury nullification in the United States?
 * are to be united - --> are to be wed?
 * Grant administration - rework to have Grant's full name included?
 * I think that it's more about his presidency than him. He avoided most of the scandal, personally.  His first VP, Colfax, did not.


 * Tyler Dennett, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography - clarify that the biography was of Hay?
 * I tried that, and wound up with too much Hay in too short a period. "his subject" didn't seem to improve anything.  I think it's clear from context.


 * analog of Cleveland's Euclid Avenue (where Hay lived), - if we're not using an article here, wouldn't "analog to" work better?
 * "of" feels better to me. I'll wait and see if other reviewers flag it.  I may have spent too much time reading science fiction in my misspent youth.


 * it was published as a book - perhaps use "compiled"?
 * Transcript - Is that The Transcript?
 * Er, no, the Boston Evening Transcript, mentioned earlier. "Evening" added to second usage.


 * "inaccuracies in the depiction of the local scene" - Does he mention any?
 * No. "that though there were occasional inaccuracies which would show that it was not written in Cleveland, yet its general tone of faithfulness and reality were quite remarkable." My, reporters were credulous in that day.


 * Link Buffalo Express to Buffalo Courier-Express?
 * CN tag added
 * Fixed.


 * Per Manual of Style/Novels, Themes should be a bit higher up
 * I've moved it up some but am not going to follow that page rigidly as I think it doesn't suit the article's needs.
 * Agree. I see where they're coming from, but we should change the format in terms of what an article needs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * is, necessarily, a refined, cultivated hero, handsome, stylish, fascinating - seems to be missing a noun
 * Checked against source. Those adjectives are referring back to "hero" in my reading. A little dramatic, but I think it's OK.
 * Looks like you're right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * even to the mustache - and what a brilliant mustache it is
 * That must have really stood out ... did you see the pic of him in his article from 1862 without it? The hair did make him look quite a bit older, and I guess he just kept it.  Of course, it was far more common then to have facial hair. And practical.


 * According to Clifford A. Bender in his journal article on the Keenan book, - I'd nix "in ... book"
 * Any other examples of imitation worth mentioning?
 * I've added a bit, at the risk of overdoing it.
 * Looks good to me. A quick browse through Google suggests that it was a fair genre in its time, so worth mentioning a few. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought, based on my reading of the article, that Hay himself wasn't born into that rich of a family. Upper-middle class, doctor father, etc. Or were they old money? Anybody comment on Hay's class allegiances?
 * Yeah, I had some material on that in the early version of the Hay article, I've gone back and retrieved it and put it in.


 * The Sloane article has a ref error. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Second Sloane article. I've put in a cite to it, so that's fixed.

If I didn't respond, I just followed your recommendation. Thank you for your comments. I put this together rather piecemeal but I think it's turned out OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say, it looks quite nice and should have an easy time at FAC. (To be honest, though, I was surprised when you took on a work of literature). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I figured I had most of the sources from my Hay research, so it would not be a difficult task. Thanks for the review.  Yes, I'm pleased with how it turned out (I could use more relevant images dealing directly with the book, but I haven't been able to find much).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If we can find an image of Henry Francis Keenan (btw, it appears his Money-Makers was published anonymously at first; see Oxford), that would help. Or a cover of The Money-Makers. I'll have a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have specified it was also published anonymously. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's one here. I'd download it, but I think it might need a little work to make it clearer.  Can you take a look at it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Already at File:The Money-makers A Social Parable by HF Keenan.jpg. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

 * Lead


 * I think in the first line I'd swop the positions of "book" and "novel". The title in no way indicates the book's true nature.
 * I'm not sure about "caused wide interest" - perhaps "created" is more appropriate?
 * "Hay's hostile view of organized labor was soon seen as outdated" – soon in relation to when? Is this a case of "by then" rather than "soon"?
 * Plot


 * "In Sleeny's discontent..." → "To Sleeny's discontent..."
 * "Offitt's treason" → perhaps "treachery", as "treason" is generally associated with betrayal of a country.
 * Background: John Hay


 * "worked for his campaign" → "worked for his presidential campaign"
 * Capitalisation of "President"? I'm never sure of the rules here
 * "but also achieved success with published works. In 1871, he published..." To avoid the repetition this could be: "and also achieved wider literary success. In 1871, he published..." (I believe that in any case "and" works better than "but")
 * I just changed "published" for "literary".


 * "where John managed Amasa Stone's investments": "he" would be unequivocal – "John" reads strangely
 * "Gale pointed out..." Who is Gale? And I think "records" rather than "pointed out"
 * Postwar labor troubles etc


 * "agrarian society of small towns and agriculture" - you can drop either "agrarian" or "of small towns..." etc, as they duplicate each other.
 * "great impetus to a transformation..." - you need to say in a few words what the transformation was to, e.g. "to an industrialized society"
 * "underway" (one word), although much used, is not recognised as such by OED, OD of E or (even) Collins.
 * "Rail bankruptcies in the Panic of 1873 led to loss of jobs, wage cuts, and business failures, and to the Railroad Strikes of 1877, when strike over wage cuts on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad spread to other lines, the Lake Shore, much to Hay's outrage." I got lost in this sentence, which seems to have a few missing parts. I think "strike" should be "strike" or "strikes", and the word "including" should go before "the Lake Shore".
 * "Though the Lake Shore dispute, unlike those elsewhere, was settled without violence, Hay blamed foreign agitators for the dispute". A non sequitur. Hay's placing of blame did not arise from the peaceful settlement at Lake Shore.
 * "The strike was ended by federal troops sent by President Rutherford B. Hayes, but at the cost of over 100 civilian deaths." I think this senetence fits better immediately after "to Hay's outrage".
 * "Those events..." – the strikes or the calls for armed suppression?
 * "The Bread-Winners is sometimes characterized as the first anti-labor novel..." By whom?
 * Themes


 * "Dalrymple argued..." As the style of the synopsis is the literary present, which is carried into this section, "argues" would read better.
 * "unions were dangerous as they may manipulate" – slight tense confusion, "were" and "may". Perhaps "tend to manipulate", or just "manipulated"?
 * "Jaher noted" → "Jaher notes"? Similar for Sloane later.
 * Writing


 * "Sometime during the winter or spring of 1881–82, Hay wrote The Bread-Winners". Odd to read this at this point. The sentence should be flipped: "Hay wrote The Bread-Winners sometime during the winter or spring of 1881–82."
 * Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "At the time, he was spending much time writing..." Awkward repetition: perhaps "At the time he was busy writing..."
 * "to author William Dean Howells, a friend of his" - "to his friend, author William Dean Howells."?
 * "Pulitzer Prize-winning" – is this relevant?
 * Since it's an early biographer, I think the credentials should be puffed a bit, to justify the inclusion.
 * Serialization


 * "sent a postcard" → "issued a postcard"
 * "and giving some information about the plot" – this subordinate clause is wrongly positioned in the sentence. It would read more smoothly thus: "Under the heading "Literary Note from The Century Co.", and giving some information about the plot, it announced that an anonymous novel, "unusual in scene and subject, and powerful in treatment" would soon be serialized in the pages of the Century."
 * "ads" not encyclopedic
 * "(that Henry Adams had written it was not yet known) → (Henry Adams' authorship was not yet known)
 * "Hay friend" → "Hay's friend"
 * Publication and aftermath


 * "that included" – in this case, given the plural "leading bestsellers", "which" is more appropriate
 * Reaction


 * "than were American ones" – just "than Americans" would do
 * Is Harriet Boomer Barber worth a redlink?
 * "The most successful such book..." – not clear what "such book" refers to. The last paragraph mentions various types; parody, pastiche, rebuttal etc
 * "He woos Eleanor although she is not physically attractive to him, convincing himself he is not a fortune seeker." I cannot understand this sentence as written. Can you clarify?
 * I have worked it out now. It would help (me) if "thus" was inserted before "convincing". Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dalrymple has been introduced by full name before, and should be just "Dalrymple" here.
 * Historical view


 * Other cases of literary past (Lorenzo Sears, who wrote 100 years ago, can safely be regarded as in the past)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean here.


 * The words "for example" should be repositioned to follow Sears's name

That's all my comments. A most interesting article, but I'm afraid that I find myself admiring Hay less than I did after reading the biographical article. (Benjamin and Ruth are probably my favourite biographical articles of this year). Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Warts and all, I suppose. I'll work through these today or tomorrow, depending on time constraints. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've done these except as noted, though sometimes using my own phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)