Talk:Pere Marquette Lumber Company

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that despite its name, the Pere Marquette Lumber Company ranked among the largest salt and lumber producers in the state of Michigan?
  • ALT1:... that despite its name, the Pere Marquette Lumber Company ranked among the largest salt producers in Michigan?

Source 1 Hotchkiss, page=249 "In 1883 this company engaged in the manufacture of salt and now make about 90,000 barrels a year."

Source 2 Bersey, page= 104 "The Pere Marquette Lumber Company ranks among the largest salt and lumber producers of the State."

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/George E. Bria

Created by Doug Coldwell (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, something odd is going on here. I found the page with the quote, and at the top of the page it clearly says p. 104. I coped the ulr address here, yet when I click on in page 84 comes up. Can't figure. Anyway. The citation is good. I'll finish up the review within the next day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Article is new enough and hook is within limits. However, while the two sources for the hook cover the large quantities of salt and lumber produced, they don't seem to support the idea that the company was among the largest such producers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers Thanks for the prompt review. Huh? Perhaps you missed it. The second quoted source says exactly that. "The Pere Marquette Lumber Company ranks among the largest salt and lumber producers of the State." [Emphasis added.] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The source given for the hook says Bersey 1890, p. 84. The statement about the "the largest salt and lumber producers..." is found on p. 104 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, something odd is going on here. I found the page with the quote, and at the top of the page it clearly says p. 104. I copied the ulr address to here, yet when I click on the url link here page 84 comes up. Can't figure. Anyway. The citation is good. I'll finish up the review within the next day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There may be a difference between the pagination in google and the pagination in the hard copy of the book. User:Doug Coldwell was working from the hard copy, I think. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I changed the reference in the article to 104. Sorry for he confusion. Are we GTG? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The article looks g2g, however, I was only a few minutes into the review when this issue came up. Let me go through it more thoroughly, just to make sure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I corrected all of those page links in the article. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Article is new enough, long enough, and hook is interesting and within limits. Images are in the P.D. No dup links. Other than general titles, no close paraphrasing detected with Earwig's dup detector. Some pages in the Nagle, (2015) source are not viewable, however, will AGF on those citations. You might want to expand the lede a bit. In any case, the article/nomination is Good to Go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Suggestion

7&6=thirteen — The History section starts right off with Ludington's failing health, and then follows with the events and such that preceded this advent. For better narrative flow I would recommend moving that first paragraph further down in the section, with the appropriate adjustments in grammar. The first sentence/paragraph might start out something like this :  e.g."The lumber baron and founder of Ludington, James Ludington, owned 360 acres that included the lots of the village of Pere Marquette in Mason County in the northwestern part of Michigan...". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers Great ideas! Tried to implement pretty much along those lines. Always looking for improvements to the article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers Good suggestion. You are right. In my work (which involves a lot of writing) I know that chronological is better, generally.

Here however, I was not the original author, and I am slow to interfere with the creative decisions made by Doug Coldwell. He is a first rate contributor to Wikipedia, and I respect his efforts. So I try to tread lightly. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Doug, thanks. Yes, chronology is usually best, esp in the opening sentence(s) to the lede or given section. Once in a while, however, we can jump forward to connect or clarify a point made in the present, etc. Also, I hope 7+6=thirteen's and my few edits were received well. Interesting history. A beer for you and 7+6=thirteen. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Pere Marquette Lumber Company to Log driving, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In the History section there seems to be a sentence that needs clarification:

"The company had the capability to produce about four barrels of salt per day and annually produced over 90,000 barrels of salt. "

Four barrels a day x 365 days in a year would give an annual yield of only 1460 barrels. How are we getting 90,000 barrels? Seems we're missing an explanation here. e.g.Did the company start out producing 4 barrels of salt a day, and then stepped up production? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Corrected and cleared up. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pere Marquette Lumber Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 17:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Prose ✓ Pass

2. Verifiability ✓ Pass

3. Depth of Coverage ✓ Pass

4. Neutral ✓ Pass

5. Stable ✓ Pass

6. Illustrations ✓ Pass

7. Miscellaneous ✓ Pass

Comments

1.

• "The village lots were sold out to individuals and that became the core of a" - I don't think the word "that" is necessary

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Link Ludington (the city) in the first mention in the prose

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• "In addition he owned a parcel" - Comma after addition

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Filer is a duplink

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Three consecutive sentences in the first paragraph of the structuring section begin with the same word, can this be varied?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• "The officers of the new company were Delos L. Filer as president, John Mason Loomis as treasurer, and L. H. Foster with James Ludington as secretaries." - Since the full names are given in the preceding sentence, Filer and Loomis can just be referred to by their last names for conciseness' sake.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• "The officers of the new company were Delos L. Filer as president, John Mason Loomis as treasurer, and L. H. Foster with James Ludington as secretaries." - Were L. H. Foster and Ludington both secretaries? If so, swap the and and the with. If not, L. H. Foster's title needs to be specifically stated and secretaries should be singular

 Done

• The company shouldn't be referred to as "they". They is a plural noun, and a company is a singular legal entity in the US, even if there are multiple officers.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• "left over lumber" - I think leftover is one word in this context

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Barrel (unit) is linked at the second instance, not the first. It should be linked at the first instance

 Done--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

2.

• Does Hanna have an ISBN or is the book from before the ISBN era?

 Done - it so happens that the local Ludington library had copy of the book. It did NOT have an ISBN. Published before that era. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Endash instead of the short dash in the page range for ref 11.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

3.

• If there's any additional information about the effects of the company on the city of Ludington, it can be added to the Legacy section

 Done - Ludington Public Library. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

4.

5.

6.

• Is there a specific reason that one caption is in large text? It looks a little out of place

 Done - fixed.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Do you think it'd be helpful to add a picture of Ludington?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• • I was thinking more of the person, not the place. The section is mostly about James Ludington. Hog Farm (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done changed to James Ludington. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

7.

• Lead could use some more information. For instance, the name of the founder, the dates active, and any important things that happened to the company should be mentioned

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is the article expanded to a state that you feel like an infobox would be warranted? I have a personal bias towards infoboxes, so I'll leave this as a judgment call for you

 Done - added. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think Background would be a better title for the History section, as the Structuring section is really the one about the company's history.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That's the first pass through, placing on hold. Hog Farm (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I have addressed all the issues. Can you take a look at it again. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a couple small tweaks to the infobox. Passing now. Hog Farm (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)