A fact from George Wilkes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 February 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the American journalist George Wilkes (d. 1885) was one of the men who introduced parimutuel betting into the United States?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing articles
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On first pass, this looks good: well written, well researched, and ripe for promotion. It's very brief, but it's understandable that this is a subject that there wouldn't be a lot about, and the main aspects appear to be covered. I made a few tweaks as I went; please doublecheck that I haven't inadvertently introduced any error, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Here's two points I couldn't immediately fix myself:
"as Wilkes drove the older paper out of business" -- "older" is a slightly confusing way to put this, as Dayton's paper is only two years old in a way, even if it inherited the older name. Perhaps just "other"?
"Wilkes' Spirit was one of the three leading newspapers in New York City, two of which were mainly devoted to horse racing - the other being Turf, Field and Farm" -- I'm a little unclear on this phrasing. Was Spirit primarily devoted to horse racing? Or is it the other two that were, one of which is named here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing some JSTOR sources on Wilkes, I see perhaps one more item that would seem to be a "main aspect" of Wilkes' biography, his management of a company for colonizing Baja California. Do you have JSTOR access to look at George Wilkes: The Transformation of a Radical Ideology, Alexander Saxton, American Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Autumn, 1981), pp. 437-458? If not, let me know and I can forward a copy to you by e-mail. This article also includes some good discussion of his and his paper's political stances. This article-- "Straight Toward His Heart": George Wilkes' Eulogy of David C. Broderick
Donald E. Hargis, George Wilkes California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Sep., 1959), pp. 197-217--seems to have some good info on his friendship with Broderick if you're interested in using it to expand, but doesn't seem as much like a "main aspect". -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Okay, dealt with the two prose issues. Saxton's views are ... that. I'd rather deal with the political stances taken by the paper in the paper's article, and the Baja thing seems to have been only slightly connected to Wilkes. Saxton's views don't seem to be necessarily those of other writers on the subject of Wilkes - I suppose we could say that Wilkes was on the board of directors of the company, but there is no supporting evidence given in Saxton's article that Wilkes actually wrote the deceptive brochure or that he took a large part of the running of the company. *IF* I ever expand this article towards FA, it'd be something to work in, but I'm not sure Saxton's views are notable, honestly. (I already had the article, and found the prose style to be incredibly purplish and non-scholarly, which also inclines me to avoid using it. More written from the point of view of a literature professor than a history professor, if you take my meaning.) I just don't see how the Baja thing is that major an aspect of his life ... it's not mentioned at all by most other writers on his life. If he'd been the president or CEO of the company, it'd be more important, but a trustee/director isn't nearly as influential. Ealdgyth - Talk19:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a lot more sources on George Wilkes to compare it to, I think I'd agree. But it seems a shame to leave out the research of several peer-reviewed journal articles when the current article only appears to have one source (the unsigned DNB entry) that focuses on Wilkes, and predates the other research by some decades. It gets admittedly tricky when dealing with a subject like Wilkes, about whom almost nothing has been written, to judge the difference between "main aspects" (required) and "comprehensiveness" (not required) or "omission of some major facts" (allowed). Saxton's article is clearly an RS by Wiki-standards, and I don't see any special reason to be skeptical of its findings.
So here's what I propose. I feel like 1-2 sentences mentioning his role in the Baja corporation would be helpful, but not a sine qua non to hit GA status.
Reading the Saxton and the Hargis again, both of them also heavily emphasize Wilkes' role in Broderick's career, which isn't really addressed in the article yet. Since this seems to be the reason Wilkes pops up most in JSTOR, this does seem like a main aspect and worth at least a paragraph to give a touch of context on who Broderick is and the fact that Wilkes worked as an early campaign manager for him. (The 1854 judge commission mentioned in Hargis is an interesting incident that seems worth including, though again not strictly required to hit GA.)
On a much smaller note, Saxton and Hargis both disagree with the DNB on the date that Wilkes went to CA, giving it as 1852 and 1850, respectively, rather than 1849; there's probably no good way to resolve this save to note the discrepancy in text or in a footnote, or give a range of dates he might have gone.
