The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:24, 21 April 2009 [1].

---

Eli Lilly[edit]

Nominator(s): Charles Edward (Talk) 13:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Eli Lilly/archive1

• Featured article review/Eli Lilly/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I have spent about a week researching this topic and have put it through a successful good article review. I believe it is now comprehensive, well sourced, and meets the other criteria needed to reach featured status. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments An interesting read. I have some questions/comments/suggestions: Sasata (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sasata (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• link quality assurance (lede, and later on as well), parrot gun (same as parrott rifle?)
  • They are the same thing, I linked it in the article. Charles Edward (Talk)

• any idea what was the name of the first business partner that ran off with the money?
  • The source doesn't give a name Charles Edward (Talk)

• "...a side street just off of Indianapolis' main business avenue." "off of" is a phrasing that should be avoided, how about replacing 'just off of' with 'neighboring'?
  • Done Charles Edward (Talk)

• I think all of the dollar values should also be given in current dollars with the conversion template
  • I did not know there was a template for that! That would be handy. In searching I cannot find the template, do you know the name? Charles Edward (Talk)
    • Template:Inflation Sasata (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added them in. Thanks! what a very useful template. Charles Edward (Talk)

• "...the area began to develop into a major business area of the city." avoid use of area twice
  • done Charles Edward (Talk)

• "The society was the forerunner of the United Way and worked to organize charitable groups on a high level." Please clarify or rephrase "on a high level"
• clarified as "central leadership" Charles Edward (Talk)

• maybe link bier, sepulcher, insulin
  • Done Charles Edward (Talk)

• what year did Josiah Lilly pass over the business to his sons?
  • I believe that they slowly rose to their position. He gave it to his son Eli about 1922, who turned it over to Josiah about 1945, who took the company public in 1952 and turned over to a board appointed president in 1953. I'd have to look up the exact dates. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess those looking for that info can search in Eli Lilly and Company Sasata (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "...later established the Lilly Endowment that in 1998 became the laregst philanthropic endowment in the world; it has since been surpassed but still remains in the top ten." largest in what sense? Most money given out? Most employees? Please clarify.
  • Most money, and most money given out annually. Clarified Charles Edward (Talk)

• "Lilly's company has since grown into one of the most important pharmaceutical companies in the world," "Most important" seems POV, is there a source for someone else who says this?
  • Yes, it is said in three of the sources - the company invented modern medicinal production, created several important drugs, and is one of the 7th largest pharmaceutical company in the world. However, it does sound a bit POV to me now that I read it. I changed it to saw "largest" instead of "most important". Charles Edward (Talk) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image query There is a flag File:Acw_bs_7a.png is this in breach of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Do_not_invent_new_icons? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. That image is on alot of American Civil War portals and was created by someone in MilHist. I don't have a problem changing it if you think it is inappropriate. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• Surely we have something more recent than the 1899 National Cyclopedia of American Biography? I note American National Biography which was published in 1999. My local library has it, yours probably does also.
  • I have removed that reference, it is not needed. The primary value of the book is the photo of Lilly in the lead, which is PD because of the age of the book. Charles Edward (Talk) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html
    • The foundation is an authoratative source on charitible giving with a US nationwide precense. It is recognized by the government and frequently issues reports on the status of philathropy in the USA. In addition, it publishes two philathropic magazines. IMO it is reliable. I could probably find another source to say the same thing though (it is just a list showing comparative size of US charitable endowments. I will see what I can dig up tha tmay be better. Charles Edward (Talk) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper153.html
    • It is not particularly reliable, but it was more supplementary. I will remove it and place it in external links. Charles Edward (Talk) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I note the publication of Eli Lily in 2006, which doesn't appear to have been used.

**I looked specifically for this book at my library but it was not there. However, I doubt there would be considerable more information available in it than I gleaned from the other sources used. Charles Edward (Talk) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, upon closer look - I did in fact use that source. It is listed under Madison in the sources. The book is actually about Eli Lilly Jr. (1885-1977), whereas this article is about Colonel Eli Lilly (1838-1898). The book was origanlly published in 1989, which is the copy I used. Charles Edward (Talk) 17:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the other two concerns out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tech. Review -- there are no disambiguation links [dab finder tool], dead external links [links checker tool], nor errors in ref formatting [WP:REFTOOLS]--Truco 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments This is a very interesting article. I just have a few comments that might improve it a bit.
• I think there are too many wikilinks to pages that are not specific to this article and clog up the page with unnecessary blue words. For instance, in the lead there are links to plantation, Mississippi, wholesale, cancer. In other areas there are wikilinks to France, Kentucky, Maryland, major, calvary is linked at least twice, Mississippi is linked again, Philadelphia, fisherman, sepulcher.
  • Cavalry is linked in the lead, and also linked in its first use in the body, as are all the other links in the lead. It is my understanding that that is an acceptable practice to link an item a second time if it occurs some distance from the original use, but I would certainly de-link them if it is against the MOS guidelines. Charles Edward (Talk)

Sorry that I am not the MOS expert - I am just relaying comments I have often received on the issue and that is - you link it only once and usually its on first mention in the article. Also, you don't want to educate Reader on every word in the article, just the ones that are specific to the article topic. For example, quinine and Paris, Illinois are good wikilinks to include but France and soldier are not.NancyHeise ^talk 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In "Business Ventures", the first sentence in the second paragraph does not give Reader the name of his partner. It should give the name and provide a wikilink if available.
  • The name of the partners are not in the sources, only the names of the businesses, from which the last name could be surmised - although not with complete certainty. I will continue to look for a source that contains there names, but I think it is doubtful I will find anything. Charles Edward (Talk)

Although I think it would make the article better, there is nothing you can be expected to do if it is not mentioned in your sources. I completely understand, I too have been asked to do the impossible and go beyond the best scholarly sources in my articles too. I don't understand why people expect us to know stuff that is just not covered in the most modern scholarship! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Same section, same paragraph, a few sentences further the article tells Reader he opened another store with another partner but does not give the name of that partner either.
  • Same as above Charles Edward (Talk)
• Same section, same paragraph - the text does not tell Reader what becomes of the first partnership but does tell what happens to the second. It should disclose both.
  • Done Charles Edward (Talk)
• Same section, first paragraph - "He moved his family to their new home to live where the entire family was stricken with mosquito-born malaria, a disease common in the region because of the humid climate." I would either eliminate "a disease common in the region because of the humid climate" or say something to the effect that it was common at that time since it is not so common now.
  • Done Charles Edward (Talk)
• I think the lead should include more of his major contributions like the FDA and the concept of seeing a doctor to get a prescription for drugs that could be addictive. These are very major and important contributions, too major to exclude from the lead I think.

NancyHeise ^talk 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • done Charles Edward (Talk)

• Support - I hope it makes FA - neat article! NancyHeise ^talk 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A well-written article on a most interesting figure in pharmaceutical history. The article is comprehensive, and its structure and flow make for a pleasant read. There is also good progression from section to section. Cirt (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support after I order a few references in the article. Mm40 (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing that would lead me to change my vote, but I noticed that under the section Business ventures, there does not appear to be a period at the end of the quote beginning with I can hardly tell you how it glares at me.... There may be, and if there isn't I'm not sure where to put it. Mm40 (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is one disambiguation link that should be corrected. Mm40 (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. (I think) Charles Edward (Talk) 15:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job! An excellent, informative, interesting article. Reywas92^Talk 16:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As a GA reviewer, I thought it was an excellent article then, and the editor has worked on it a good deal since. A nice, clean job. Clearly conveys the information. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.