Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glen P. Robinson/archive1
- 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 not promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [1].
Glen P. Robinson edit
Glen P. Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured article candidates/Glen P. Robinson/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Glen P. Robinson/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well-sourced, comprehensive summary of this (living) man's life. I ran the article through peer review a couple months ago, so hopefully the most glaring issues are taken care of. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't notate titles in all-caps
- Need page numbers for multi-page sources like FNs 12 and 13
- Magazine titles should be italicized
- FN 21: publisher?
- FN 24: publisher?
- Don't italicize publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on content coverage, source quality, toolbox issues, citation formatting I am a labour historian who primarily looks at institutions, not a business historian biographer. I'm planning to look at a variety of review elements with this article. I noticed this tight simple little bio wasn't getting reviews and felt I had to step in, but it could use a prose look over, because I am more than willing to admit that I don't write so good. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing—I've checked the formatting of the sources, and broadly checked the quality for HQRS criteria. I'll spotcheck below towards the end.
- How is The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. a high quality reliable source given its method of data collection (see The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography)
- I'm using it for two facts: his specific birthdate and his parents' names. Those facts are also given in this source, page 1110 by Marquis Who's Who, would that be better? —Disavian (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- His birthdate is further corroborated by this source from the IEEE. —Disavian (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marquis appears to fact check material received from persons included. The IEEE source is fine. I suggest replacing with these higher quality sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Miscited, published by PR Newswire (archived by Highbeam): "Scientific-Atlanta Celebrates First Founders Day; Establishes Glen P. Robinson, Jr. Scholarship In Honor of Company's First President"
- Last time I checked Time was a journal or magazine and deserved italics in the style you're using? "U.S. Business: One Way to Do It"
- Compare your treatment of the same publisher (parenthesis) in Coffee, Hoyt (Fall 1995) and Dunn, John (Summer 1990).
- http://www.policeone.com/ doesn't seem to have an editorial policy, or editor. What makes it a HQRS?
- I don't see an editorial policy, but I did find the email address editor@policeone.com, which indicates that there is an editor. They're just republishing a press release, from which I am citing a noncontroversial fact (the company was acquired) that is corroborated in other sources and in LaserCraft's website itself (the title of which is "LaserCraft | A Public Safety Equipment Company"). I haven't found any other sources that publish that press release, though. —Disavian (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia" could do with a page specification
- How is The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. a high quality reliable source given its method of data collection (see The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography)
- Content is good and well discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Child hood? War experience (Service, rank, theatre)?
- I have attempted to add this information: diff. Most of the information is from this ref, page 16. —Disavian (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While this is great information you will need to rewrite the content added in this diff it as it is overly close paraphrase of the original source. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I have some help on that? I stare at that paragraph and can't find a coherent way of rephrasing it. It doesn't help that that's the only source that I've found that discusses his early life. —Disavian (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the pain. I've edited over this paragraph, and probably got it wrong, but that may help you reedit it to a better result (I understand that the paucity of biographical detail makes this difficult to summarise without closely following the source, but my distance from the source may have changed that up) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I have some help on that? I stare at that paragraph and can't find a coherent way of rephrasing it. It doesn't help that that's the only source that I've found that discusses his early life. —Disavian (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While this is great information you will need to rewrite the content added in this diff it as it is overly close paraphrase of the original source. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to add this information: diff. Most of the information is from this ref, page 16. —Disavian (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 5919 does not appear in any of the sources cited, Template:Inflation-fn? Why are you using a CPI inflation on a small capital sum? Nominal GDP per capita suggests $14,900 as of 2010 per Samuel H. Williamson, "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present," MeasuringWorth, 2011. "each contributed $100 (for a total of $700, worth $5,919 today)"
- This is why it isn't really a great idea to inflate data, you gave us a capital input sum inflated for $700 in 1951, but not these: "resulted in a $4,000 loss" " $3.1 million revenue in 1962, approximately $200 million when Robinson left in 1979, and $1.9 billion in revenue in 2005" "2000, he invested $1.5 million in Genomic Solutions Inc.[25] Most recently, Robinson is an investor in and co-founder of the 2007 VentureLab startup, C2 Biofuels, which aims to build several $100 million" "$1.5 million Glen P. Robinson Chair" "due in part to his $5 million donation towards its construction."
- So, you're suggesting that we simply remove the inflation notes? I just want to make sure that's what you're suggesting before we do it. —Disavian (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You do need to know that I have a strong editorial opinion against using inflation calculations; to the point that it may be my hobby horse. I would suggest removing the inflation templates as they are close enough in time to the present to not be many factors of ten out. However, if you feel this is wrong for your article, please seek a second reviewer as this is a point on which I have a strong opinion that may lie outside the FAC norm. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's really any "norm" in FAC over the use of inflation templates, though once it's established that the calculations are by template and not independent research by the article's editors, from what I've seen, it's typically considered acceptable. I would also point out that it appears that most of the other high-quality historical articles that are mostly being taken care of by WP:GATECH seem to make similar use of it, and it's become an unofficial "norm" there. If it's not out of line, I'd argue that for the sake of uniformity to that project, it should be left.LaMenta3 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't, but I'm going to strongly suggest that this is an "all or none" issue; and that you can't inflate capital values using a CPI inflation. The first would be a quibble that the delegates would over look. The second I'm quite strong on, and have previously opposed successfully on. Money, over time, acts differently if it is capital, workers wages, workers consumption, the consumption of the rich, a national economic initiative, stockpiles of goods, etc. CPI does not reflect the opportunity cost of capital particularly well. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On one hand, I feel like this is a quibble more suited for discussion on the template itself (or an argument for additional, more accurate templates better suited to the various contexts). On the other hand, I understand what you're getting at, and if there were a more accurate alternative to contextualize the amount, I would certainly say use it. However, I feel that the historical amounts do need some kind of contextualizing in terms of current worth, and right now, CPI seems to be the only uniform (to the project), reasonable approximation available in a neat, pre-cited, template format on Wikipedia, and thus, I return to my first point, which is that more, better-suited templates are likely needed for better accuracy. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CPI is a poor indicator for………and that's why the Australian bureau of statistics uses a linked set of series to explain consumer prices. Oh dear, you just told me SOFIXIT and I do have a capacity to do so. Anticipate a US capital inflation template and inflation footnote set before this review through. Then you can inflate all your figures using the same calculation and an appropriate calculation.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On one hand, I feel like this is a quibble more suited for discussion on the template itself (or an argument for additional, more accurate templates better suited to the various contexts). On the other hand, I understand what you're getting at, and if there were a more accurate alternative to contextualize the amount, I would certainly say use it. However, I feel that the historical amounts do need some kind of contextualizing in terms of current worth, and right now, CPI seems to be the only uniform (to the project), reasonable approximation available in a neat, pre-cited, template format on Wikipedia, and thus, I return to my first point, which is that more, better-suited templates are likely needed for better accuracy. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't, but I'm going to strongly suggest that this is an "all or none" issue; and that you can't inflate capital values using a CPI inflation. The first would be a quibble that the delegates would over look. The second I'm quite strong on, and have previously opposed successfully on. Money, over time, acts differently if it is capital, workers wages, workers consumption, the consumption of the rich, a national economic initiative, stockpiles of goods, etc. CPI does not reflect the opportunity cost of capital particularly well. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's really any "norm" in FAC over the use of inflation templates, though once it's established that the calculations are by template and not independent research by the article's editors, from what I've seen, it's typically considered acceptable. I would also point out that it appears that most of the other high-quality historical articles that are mostly being taken care of by WP:GATECH seem to make similar use of it, and it's become an unofficial "norm" there. If it's not out of line, I'd argue that for the sake of uniformity to that project, it should be left.LaMenta3 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You do need to know that I have a strong editorial opinion against using inflation calculations; to the point that it may be my hobby horse. I would suggest removing the inflation templates as they are close enough in time to the present to not be many factors of ten out. However, if you feel this is wrong for your article, please seek a second reviewer as this is a point on which I have a strong opinion that may lie outside the FAC norm. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're suggesting that we simply remove the inflation notes? I just want to make sure that's what you're suggesting before we do it. —Disavian (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Content coverage otherwise appears adequate for a business biography
- Inappropriate editorial tone: "Years later, the school would proudly boast of Scientific Atlanta's origins at Georgia Tech"
- How about "promote" instead of "proudly boast"? diff —Disavian (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is more a hidden comparative [To begin with the School placed difficulties in the path.] [But now! They celebrate this, and were therefore originally wrong.] Years later seems to be a key element of the problem, as it implies that on judicious reconsideration. Do you see what I mean here, that there's an editorial element that an encyclopaedia can't sustain by itself? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source I cited explicitly states this fact, though. I can dig out the book and quote it here if you'd like, or we can just remove the sentence. —Disavian (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is explicit editorialisation by a reliable source, try working it into a quote! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea. I'll look at trying that tonight. —Disavian (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So this the text I was getting that statement from. There's editorializing there, but it's... subtle. It doesn't seem particularly quotable. I went ahead and linked the relevant names. Disavian (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Futher friction occurred when Rosselot agreed to accept the presidency of Scientific Associates, a direct spin-off from the station incorporated on October 31, 1951. This private firm later evolved into Scientific Atlanta, a multimillion dollar Atlanta-based electronics corporation. Georgia Tech administrators today look with great pride to Scientific Atlanta as an example of how the school has helped to create a "high tech" infrastructure in the state of Georgia. Although there is no explicit reference in the files indicating the case, several principals have suggested that Vice President Cherry Emerson viewed the participation of EES personnel in this private research concern as a potential if not direct conflict of interest. Policies did later develop under Emerson that required a written request to the president in order to undertake outside work with Scientific Associates. Emerson also suspected that Scientific Associates competitively sought contracts that otherwise would have gone to the station.
— Engineering The New South, page 263- Your text follows the editorialisation here adequately, and appropriately. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, what you said above ("[To begin with the School placed difficulties in the path.] [But now! They celebrate this, and were therefore originally wrong.]") fairly succinctly encapsulates the progression of nearly every major historical event related to Georgia Tech. That said, it made me laugh. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your text follows the editorialisation here adequately, and appropriately. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is explicit editorialisation by a reliable source, try working it into a quote! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source I cited explicitly states this fact, though. I can dig out the book and quote it here if you'd like, or we can just remove the sentence. —Disavian (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is more a hidden comparative [To begin with the School placed difficulties in the path.] [But now! They celebrate this, and were therefore originally wrong.] Years later seems to be a key element of the problem, as it implies that on judicious reconsideration. Do you see what I mean here, that there's an editorial element that an encyclopaedia can't sustain by itself? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "promote" instead of "proudly boast"? diff —Disavian (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Child hood? War experience (Service, rank, theatre)?
- Toolbox all looks good: Alt text is fine; Citebot is fine; No disambiguations; Links seem good. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.