Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Henry Pittock

Henry Pittock

Would like third-party assessment, and advice to bring up to GA level. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 08:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is of very high quality; congradulations are in order! I would say that you have a 50:50 chance of this article passing a WP:GA review - it would solely depend on the leniency of the editors who review it. I would like to, however, make a few constructive comments about the article; these may seem picky - and also, I can fix them myself - but I would like to offer you the opportunity to do so as the main contributor. Firstly, the final sentence of the introductory paragraph reads rather clumsily and perhaps you ought to re-write that. Secondly; the opening sentence of the final paragraph of the section Oregonian publisher and editor: clarify what "it" (first word) is. Lastly, try to either find sources for or re-use existing sources for the opening paragraph. I often find that sources are second most effective in the opening paragraph - after, obviously, controversial statements - as they seem to make a bold statement saying "this article is well-researched and worth your time to read". That's it! Well done, and I would advise after both these advised changes and a little expansion (remember your sources - see WP:CITE) and your sailing that Good Article review! If you have any questions, in particular about my review, please don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page. Regards, Anthony cfc ^{[T • C]} 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"J-M" (Jgilhousen)

July 11, 1857, should be wikilinked to July 11, 1857 as with other years with dates.
Remove the space in front of reference 2 and 11
I think you will need an infobox which can be found at wikiproject biography, also any kind of picture, painting, drawing of him would be be nice. M3tal H3ad 08:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MLilburne

I think this article is most of the way there. Just a few things...

There are a couple of sentences that have an unencyclopedic, rather POV tone. "His life was a rags-to-riches story befitting a hero in a Horatio Alger story" and "In a career that spanned over sixty years, Pittock forever left his mark on his community, its media and culture, its politics and even its architecture."

Any general conclusion about the subject's life ought to go in the lead, not at the end of the article.

The article is a bit undercited for a GA. At least one footnote per paragraph is a good general rule, and there are factual statements that really need citation. (For example, "He is reported to have made most of the journey barefoot." Who reported it?)

Hope these comments are useful to you. MLilburne 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed. Since they involve recrafting some major portions of text, rather than just quick error correction, they will take me some time to implement. The barefoot reference is ubiquitous in the work of his biographers, including those I included as "general references." There are bits from those two sources in virtually every paragraph, and marking them all seemed to have a significant impact on readability. I'll revisit that issue in view of your remarks. The "conclusion" sentence and Horatio Algier remark attempts (obviously unsuccessful) at adding color, which my writing has been criticized for lacking... I tend to favor a much more dry style that some people seem to find dull. I'll rework them. All in all, thank you. I'll make a note here when I've completed a redraft. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

I think the article is too close to GA status. This is my review:

Prose problems. Let's take the first sentence of the lead: "Henry Lewis Pittock (March 1, 1836 - January 28, 1919) was an Oregon (USA) pioneer, newspaper editor and publisher, and wood and paper magnate, active in Republican politics and Portland, Oregon civic affairs, and an avid outdoorsman and adventurer." How many "ands" do we have in this not so long sentence: 6!
"He is frequently referred to as the founder of The Oregonian, although it was published as a struggling weekly before he reestablished it as the state's preeminent daily newspaper." And how many "as" do we have here? The rest of the article is much much better, but don't forget that the first thing a reviewer reads is the lead (some of them aren't even interested in reading the rest of the article!). I would strongly suggest a detailed copy-editing by you (if you feel capable enough of doing it) or by an external native English speaker.
The lead could be a bit more expanded per WP:LEAD.
"Pittock assumed the duties of manager and editor the newspaper". Don't we need an "of" before the newspaper or am I wrong?
We linke full dates: 4 February, 1861.
In "Later life and legacy" I read things about his later life, but almost nothing about his legacy. Note that legacy is something more than the legal term of heritage (who took the shares ans why). Did his work survive him? Did he influence the next generations? Is his mark still present? If he had a significant legacy, expand. If not, I think a title without reference to legacy, would be better.
Note 7: "Pittock, Henry Lewis." American National Biography. (2004) Oxford University Press. Reprinted in Biographies Plus Illustrated, H. W. Wilson. Is this a book? If yes, where is the ISBN? Always put ISBNs in books (especially the recent ones, where the ISBN exists).--Yannismarou 11:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]