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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

William Robinson Brown[edit]

William Robinson Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/William Robinson Brown/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Montanabw^(talk) 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a stable good article which has subsequently gone through additional upgrading with both formal and informal peer review. I believe it meets or exceeds the FA criteria. W.R. Brown was a very interesting individual who contributed significantly to the diverse fields of forestry and horse breeding. I have been the lead editor, though with substantial assistance from others, notably User:Churn and change, who helped me with a lot of cleanup and source locating, but has been inactive in recent months. It was passed for GA by none other than Malleus Fatuorum, who also did some copyediting. Thanks also to several other users for extra eyes, copyedits and helpful commentary. I have previously been part of a team on a number of FA article runs, notably for Appaloosa and Yogo sapphire, but this the first time I have taken the lead on a FAC, so please be patient if I have some awkwardness with the procedure. Montanabw^(talk) 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments on this version of the article.

  Now supporting this article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes ref 47 reliable?

    I fixed the URL (not sure how all the stuff got stripped), but the actual ref is to the 1918 stud book, which is in hard copy and difficult to access. The URL is to a faithful reproduction from the original. Is this fix better now? --Montanabw

    • Ah, good explanation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know how reliable the inflationary numbers are after two economics editors on one of my FACs debated it; I ended up removing them. It may be worthwhile to ping Protonk (talk · contribs) or Fifelfoo (talk · contribs) to see if they are appropriate for this article.

    I'll see if I can do a more elegant fix. Basically, at a peer review, someone wanted a dollars/pounds conversion, but I realized that the conversion rate at the time would not have been the same as now, so I'm open to ways to do this better! --Montanabw

    Follow up: I have a version using measuring worth sitting in my sandbox if we need to swap out somthing, it's about 6K different, but it's as of 2010. In my case, I used the WP templates throughout, (Template:Inflation and layered it into Template:International dollars which claim to do all the calculations, which looks like you didn't have to option to do that in 2010, when your article was up. I hope that using the templates makes the calculations work, one of the template cites measuring worth. I could toss the USD calculations if that's the problematic bit. --Montanabw

    If I may butt in, my own view is that the ((inflation)) template is almost always best avoided unless we're talking about fairly recent conversions obviously related to the typical basket of goods, which 20 or so horses clearly isn't. So I've changed the conversion to a historic opportunity cost basis using the GDP deflator, which I think is more realistic. All cited and explained in a note. In general I think that when we provide conversions we should explain the basis for the calculation, another reason to avoid the ((inflation)) template. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm good with that, upon reflection, it sounds like we don't have a good way to actually translate the amount to modern US dollars (or international dollars) either, so I just tossed that bit, though if someone thinks that calculator provides good info, I can restore. The original change came because someone wanted a USD comparison, which appears to be more difficult than I thought. Montanabw^(talk) 23:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's so difficult; the tricky part is in deciding on what basis to do the inflation calculation. Why not do a conversion from sterling to US dollars for the 2011 equivalent amount of £138,000, which would make it $217,000? That would be about $10,000 a horse, but I've got no idea whether or not that's cheap, which is obviously the point you're trying to make. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. That's the problem with averages: 10K today for a fine breeding stallion is cheap, but for a good saddle horse or a broodmare is on the high end, other than for top of the line. But Brown WAS after the top of the line. He got one outstanding stallion and a bunch of mares in the deal with Blunt. I ran across a thing (blog, not RS, but I suspect is accurate) that said the price he paid for one of the Egyptian mares was equal to what he paid for the whole lot he got from Blunt,so that helps me some. According to this site, at the end of WWI, an "officer's horse" (i.e. a nice trained saddle horse, probably a gelding) was going for about 75 pounds. 2727 pounds for 20 horses breaks out to about 136 pounds per horse, which is already more than the officer's charger. But I don't know how it ranked in the UK to, say, a champion racehorse or something, which might be the best comparison. In the states, Man O'War, a stud colt intended as a racehorse, sold as a yearling for $5000 in 1918 dollars, which was also considered a bargain, considering that he became one of the best racehorses of all time. So, do you think we have it accurate, given context? (I might ping Tigerboy on racehorse prices) Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it would be best just to state the figures without comment, unless you can find a reliable source for that observation about the Egyptian mare, which would really put the price Brown paid for 20 horses into context. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Right now, the text reads " he paid only £2727 for the entire lot." I think it can stand as is, with the "only" being verified in the article citation, and I can find several more sources to verify "only" as a low price in the eyes of Arabian breeder history scholars. I pinged Tigerboy1966 and he pointed me at some racehorse articles where horses, even then,s sold for over a thousand pounds (or guineas, why did they still use guineas in 1918??) each, so by that standard, these horses did sell cheap. I have the basic inflation conversion down in the footnote and as long as you are quite sure we should use opportunity cost and not retail price index (I crunched that in the sandbox and got "This amount would be £104,000 as of 2010, using the retail price index") I'm happy. Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We still use guineas today at horse sales, God knows why. I'm confident about using the historic opportunity cost in preference to CPI/RPI. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever you all decide is fine by me—I just wanted to draw attention to the issue. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the The North Adams, Massachusetts, Transcript and Portsmouth Herald, I don't think publishing locations are needed unless it needs to be dabbed (e.g., why the Times is cited as Times (London)). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you suggesting that I just remove the redundant "location" parameter or adjust paper titles? The papers themselves are named with their geographic name (The Portsmouth Herald, North Adams Transcript). Does that make a difference? This shouldn't be a difficult fix, just let me know how I should do this --Montanabw

    I've removed the two redundant "|location=" parameters. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Groovy Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly what I was looking for! Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-US-not renewed, PD-1923). Sources and authors provided (tweaked 1 tag to be more specific). GermanJoe (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments - date formatting inconsistent (several different formats in footnotes), spacing on Forbis publisher, remount service linked twice in same sentence, not sure why there's a page number in Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed I think. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We're just doing some minor fiddling around the edges while we await further review!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Don't think "Workers' Compensation" should be capitalized in the lead.

  Neither do I, capitals removed. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A similar issue exists in the body.

  Fixed. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• International purchases: "The" after "owing to the turmoil within the Blunt family" should also be decapitalized.

  Punctuation fixed plus slight rewrite. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference 49 needs a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?

• Arlene Magid is a highly respected Arabian horse scholar and researcher. She seems to be putting most of her stuff on her own web site these days, but this gives you some idea of how well-known she is. I can probably dig up the info somewhere else, but this was a straightforward, understandable explanation. Let me know what you'd like to see to further demonstrate her reliability as a source. --Montanabw

• Ref 54 could use page numbers for the relevant content.

• You're right! I forgot to do that, have to get the book- which is not at the same place where I edit wiki, but can do this in the next day or so, (tie string on finger). --Montanabw FOLLOW UP -- Added pages to the citation. --Montanabw

• Get an en dash in there for the page range and that should be it for my batch of comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I put in an en-dash, at least it was the option in the insert box that was shorter than an em dash. If it's not the correct way, can someone tweak that for me? (My eyesight is not great on this stuff, I also have a lot of typos with [ and { ) -- Montanabw

• If ref 30 is worthy of a PDF designation, then several of the other sources used are as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I think I fixed that, let me know if I didn't do it right. (I'm not great at the formatting stuff) --Montanabw

• Support – A charming little article, which I think meets the FA criteria with the fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The lead is far too long. Three paragraphs will suffice. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Four paragraphs is perfectly acceptable under the FA criteria. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, the first two paragraphs were merged together at one point, then someone wanted them split apart again, the lead had a lot of work prior to its GA run. If you look at it, we really have a brief summary of each major point, though if you think something in there isn't needed, I am open to suggestions of what could be cut. I'll also take a peek and see if I spot anything that is really too minor for the lead and see what my "eyes have looked at this article too long" brain can cut. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I did the more recent peer review and am minded to support. A few comments:

• "His horses won races … " Suggest reversing this sentence and beginning with "Even though"

  I think it was that way once, and someone changed it when we reworked and trimmed the lede a bit in response to the comments above. To address your comment, I rephrased the whole bit into two sentences to put Brown's efforts first and the comment about the Jockey Club grant in a separate sentence. For one thing, the Jockey Club donation only occurred after the first rides where the TBs got beat, so in time sequence it probably needs to go in that order anyway. Does this change work better? (Can continue to tweak if needed) --Montanabw

• "Despite the entire Brown family selling personal assets" Suggest "Although Brown family members sold personal assets"

  Done. I think that was the way it was once worded and then it was changed (possibly by me in response to someone else, or else by George, ask him?) Will use your wording, if others object, we can discuss. --Montanabw

• In Personal Life, there should be a lower case Senator.

  The reference is to "U.S. Senator...John B. Gordon" In that context, isn't "United States (or US) Senator" a formal title to be capitalized? (Will change if you can show me that I'm wrong). Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, though I would link in that case. Wehwalt.

DONE -- Montanabw

• "and became the largest tree nursery in the United States at its peak." Suggest "and at its peak was the largest tree nursery in the United States". Picky, but I think "was" better than "became" here.

  Done. Another case where I think the "at its peak" language was the way it was worded at some point, and someone changed it. Will change back, if whoever changed it objects, we can discuss further. --Montana

• "He was partially blind in one eye." This should be in the previous sentence, perhaps with the help of an "as".

  Done -- Montanabw

• Regarding the image of *Abu Zeyd, it is rather unusual to have an image credit as part of the image. Your thoughts?

  I'd like to keep it, as whoever uploaded it to commons, It's one of the best quality scans of the image I have seen (a different example here). That particular shot is also probably the best image of the horse as far as showing his quality. (examples of the few other images of him can be viewed here) FYI, I do not possess the original stud books, and those who have them rarely lend out the originals, so I also contacted the librarian at the W.K.Kellogg library at Cal Poly Pomona, who verified that the image was published on the frontispiece of the 1918 Arabian stud book. -- Montanabw

  I don't personally care, but just giving you a heads up. If you feel it should stay I'm fine with it. Wehwalt.

• "only £2727" I don't much care for present day values, but could we at least have the dollar equivalent then? It should not be difficult as rates were fixed.

  See the above conversation. I would gladly do a dollars/pounds conversion in 1918 dollars if I knew where to find what the exchange rate was then and properly calculate and source it, do you happen to know a link? I originally had a present day pounds/dollars conversion, but I dropped it due to the conversation with Ed above. I agree that a dollars conversion would be useful and would be glad to add one, so long as the calculation will meet all FA criteria for such things (HELP!) --Montanabw

  Not sure it is reliable, but it seems very good, here.Wehwalt

I'll root around about it a bit as to RS, and will see if I can toss in a conversion. Thanks for the source. Montanabw

• Do we have any links that might tell us what a remount agent is?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly, no, and even the U.S. Army Remount Service article itself is rather new. (I worked on it some, it was mostly Intothatdarkness' project) In the case of Brown, a lot of the original people writing about him did so in a time when apparently they just assumed everyone knew what a remount agent was. I have found info that these remount agents were basically civilians with government contracts to provide horses to the military and/or to stand stallions owned by the military, and that they also had an advisory board of some sort that was organized in cooperation with the Army, but the sources on this are marginal for RS, especially by the standards of WP MilHist. Intothatdarkness and I have both been doing some digging, and what little we've found is interesting but tertiary sources at best. What little we can properly cite is at U.S._Army_Remount_Service#The_20th_century. --Montanabw

Perhaps you might want to redline it then. Wehwalt.

DONE-- Montanabw

• Support (placed here for delegate convenience). I've looked over the modifications and see no problems, also the new material. Excellent article about an obscure (at least to me!) but interesting individual.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator's update: After addressing Wehwalt's comments, and per an email request from an editor I respect, suggesting that I add more about Brown's career with the company, I added three new sources and expanded the personal life, Brown Company career, and legacy sections. In the process, I did some copyediting and fixed a few things I spotted along the way. I apologize for doing a major edit in the midst of an FAC, but the material adds significantly to the article. I welcome any comments, help, or suggestions on both the existing and new edits. Here is the diff from today's work. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Yes, you're very naughty for adding new material mid-FAC, but I've augmented Wehwalt's check of it with a quick browse of my own and it doesn't look like you've done any harm... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thanks to all reviewers, I appreciate your work and effort in reviewing this article! Montanabw^(talk) 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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