Talk:Charles Morgan (businessman)/GA1

Oof — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.215.203 (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 12:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass:

Thanks for reviewing and editing the article. There is another editor who made substantial contributions to the article, so if it's ok, I intend to notify him about the review. cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had followed Baughman's practice of omitting definite articles before the names of ships. Also AP Style prefers the neuter pronoun when referring to ships, but I was overruled by other editors, and the practice in other WP articles indicates the feminine pronoun to refer to ships. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would follow the practice of omitting the definite article for ship names; I'm not sure why you decided to start adding them. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gatoclass: I am ready to resume the GA-review at your convenience. I am not always online, but I will check WP frequently and stand ready to answer any questions that you or other reviewers may have. Thank you, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"The October fourth board member was a close friend of Charles Morgan". What does that mean?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I had expected, given the length of the article, that it would be reasonably comprehensive; however, it completely fails to mention one of the most interesting periods in Morgan's career, his struggle with Vanderbilt over control of the Nicaraguan route to the Pacific. This is, after all, an episode where two American tycoons literally went to war with one another over control of a lucrative asset. Baughman himself describes it as "one of the most ruthless episodes of American financial history." How could you fail to include it? It makes me worry that there may be other glaring omissions in areas that I am less familiar with.

I might add that I also think the section on the New York and Charleston Steamship Company could use some work, though I might be able to add to that myself. At the very least though, I think you will have to add a section on the Nicaragua struggle before I could even think of giving this article a pass. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point. When I read this chapter about Nicaragua the first time, it seemed to me to be more relevant to Vanderbilt than to Morgan. On the other hand, making the Commodore into your enemy is very noteworthy. I have created a new section. I am writing a chapter summary and I will pare it down later. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to request a hold on the GA-review. I agree that omitting the Nicaragua narrative is a serious editorial oversight. I am finding Baughman's account of this too fragmented to be used as the only source. I will need to consult other sources, such as HW Brands book on the gold rush, or TJ Stiles' bio of Vanderbilt. I don't have access to either book at the moment. Thanks for your helpful criticism. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Oldsanfelipe, let me know when you are ready to continue. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass, Stiles disagrees with Baughman in regard to the roles of Morgan and Garrison in Walker's filibuster. Baughman claims that "Charles J. Macdonald arrived in San Juan del Sur as a confidential agent of Morgan and Garrison. Macdonald was not an official representative of the transit company, but acted solely for his principals as private individuals through a power of attorney from Garrison. Attaching himself to Walker's staff through a mutual friend, Macdonald accompanied the filibusters in their victorious campaigns against Virgin Bay and Grenada. (Baughman (1968), p. 77.)"

Stiles characterizes "MacDonald" as a "local company [Accessory Transit Company] official." He claims Garrison did not conspire with the filibusters since, "Walker and French [Walker's aide] had called on Garrison before departing San Francisco to ask for transportation on an Accessory Transit Company steamship. 'Garrison not only refused to let us go on the steamer,' French recalled, 'but told us he would have nothing to do with the matter, for if he did, he would be blamed by the company.'" (Stiles (2009), p. 273, bold added.)

I am not certain about Baughman's narrative at this point of the story, but I do not find Stiles' rebuttal compelling. If we take French at his word, it looks like Garrison is only concerned about the optics. Furthermore, Baughman's claim about offering ships to the filibusters was restricted to Morgan providing his own ships from the Atlantic side. Stiles also said Garrison couldn't have been involved because he had left for San Francisco, but again, this does not address Baughman's claim that Garrison gave Macdonald power of attorney. Any thoughts? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I put my hand up for this, I did say I would struggle to find time to do it, but I expected it to be fairly straightforward nonetheless and it's turning out to be anything but. I already had to read the entire Baughman chapter again, now I guess I am going to have to read the relevant Stiles chapter as well in order to get a handle on the differences. I can do this, but I can't guarantee to do so right away, so you may have to wait a few days before I respond. Gatoclass (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Let me repeat the phrase "at your convenience." I have no desire to pressure you into a hasty fail or a hasty pass. Whatever the grade of the article, I want it to be the best that it can be. I realize this is a challenging subject and article. Since most of it is sourced by a book which is not readily available to most editors, it warrants a higher level of scrutiny. I am ready to answer any questions, but will await patiently. Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: I would like to withdraw the nomination. Thank you, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not getting back to this earlier, Oldsanfelipe, I had a bout of illness and then it completely slipped off the radar. I remembered it a few days ago but haven't found time to get back to it yet. I think we can probably still get it done if you want to give it a shot. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear about your illness. I can answer your questions if you are ready. Best, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will make this a priority and we'll see if we can wrap it up. It won't be today though as I have had a very long day and am pretty tired, and I will have to re-familiarize myself with the content, so either later this weekend or early next week. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Hey all. This seems to have stalled. Any way we can get it moving again. AIRcorn (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Gatoclass - Any update on this review? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15p:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I just moved house and am very busy right now - also I have no internet connection at my new address yet. This review is still a priority for me and as soon as I get sufficiently organized here I intend to complete it - hopefully in the next week or two. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

No problem Gatoclass - Just wanted to check this hadn't been abandoned. Let me know if there are any issues with the review Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second reviewer[edit]

I understand that Gatoclass isn’t going to be able to finish the review; BlueMoonset asked me if I’d be willing to take it on. I’m happy to do it but am not sure when I’ll have time. If work pressure allows I may be able to work on it later this week; if not it should be no later than mid or late April. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldsanfelipe: I'm starting to go through the article now. I've read through the review notes above, and I feel obliged to let you know that I'm much less knowledgeable about the topic than Gatoclass appears to be, so my review may not catch any problems with comprehensiveness. I'll copyedit as I go -- please revert any mistakes I make.

In the "New York and Charleston Steam Packet Company" section, the William Gibbons' loss is mentioned as if we are supposed to understand it's Morgan's ship, but only the David Brown and Columbia have been mentioned. I thought perhaps the William Gibbons was on the Jamaica packet line, but apparently it sank off South Carolina. Can this be clarified? I don't think you have to explain for each ship you mention that it's Morgan's, but in this case it's confusing.
Were Morgan's actions in helping the Confederacy evade blockades, using the Frances, illegal? If so, I think we should make that clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new company started by acquiring Manhattan from Charles A. Whitney and his defunct Central American venture: what is this venture? As far as I can tell this hasn't been mentioned before.

That's it for a first read-through. The prose is fine for GA; I was mostly concerned with making sure it was clear and unambiguous. I'll do a pass through the sources and look at the images, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie:, Please see my answers below and check out my recent edits.

1. William Gibbons: As the lead paragraph of the section states, the New York and Charleston Steam Packet Company is a partnership, and Charles Morgan is one of the partners. I added a statement making clear that the William Gibbons was a steamship owned and operated by the New York and Charleston Steam Packet Company.

2: The lead sentence of the paragraph had read, "Morgan continued to operate other ventures by playing both sides." The same paragraph cites examples of Morgan doing business with the Union, and the last sentence is an example of Morgan doing business with the Confederacy. Does the rewording make it more clear? Do we need to be more explicit about the American Civil War for the benefit of readers outside the US?

3: Removed reference to "defunct Central American venture." It might have been important to Whitney, but not an important detail in the Morgan narrative. However, in my opinion, the connection to Whitney is important to illustrate that Morgan frequently engaged in business with his sons-in-laws. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I will take a look, probably this weekend. Can you nominate this for another GA, though? We really shouldn't run this assessment under the old GA, which is now closed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately as Oldsanfelipe has not edited in six months and it's been two months since I posted here, I'm going to have to fail this. Oldsanfelipe, if you return and would like to renominate this article, let me know and I'll try to review it quickly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]