Wikipedia:Peer review/P. T. Barnum/archive1

P. T. Barnum

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I was browsing over this page and wanted to get an expert's opinion on how to re-organise it. It needs significant work in that respect. I also want to get input on the prose.

Thanks, Zelnr (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by User:LinguistAtLarge

Here are my impressions after a very cursory glance at the article:

• The lede needs to be longer and both introduce the article (it does this ok) and summarize the article (this is what it doesn't do very well). You might try writing a one- or two-sentence summary of each section of the article, then take those summaries and try to work them into the lede. See WP:LEDE.
• For organization, I would remove the entire "Life" section heading and make all the level three headings under it level two headings. == instead of ===.
• The "Statue" section near the end is sort of hanging there out of place. I'd put it before the "Publications" section (See WP:LAYOUT) and try to expand it if possible. It would be good to reference it as well.
• I'm not sure that the "Profitable Philanthropy" section heading should be enclosed in quotation marks.
• Go through the entire article and work on the wikilinks. Someone tried to link Bridgeport, CT, but they only used single brackets. Also the name of the state should be spelled out, not abbreviated. See WP:OVERLINK for more help.
• There are some date ranges (1625-1695) that use a dash (-) instead of an ndash (–) See WP:DASH.
• There are a lot of parenthetical phrases in the article. I would try to rewrite those sentences to avoid the use of parenthesis.
• One of the items in the "Publications" section is missing the ISBN.
• Make sure all the links in the "See also" section are relevant. If the article is already linked in the body of the article, it doesn't need to be repeated in the See also section. WP:SEEALSO.
• The "External links" section seems to be a bit on the heavy side. Review each link and make sure it abides by WP:EL.
• There seems to be a mixture of citation styles, notably, "(Lott, 1993, 78)" should be converted to a footnote-style reference. WP:CITATION.
• I would try to avoid contractions such as "she'd be his companion..." WP:CONTRACTIONS
• There is liberal usage of quotation marks in the article, I would review this and make sure it is appropriate.
• Try using the {{inflation}} template for the dollar amounts in the article.
• You also mentioned wanting feedback on the prose. I haven't read the article in-depth, but you might want to take a look at this essay for some advice on writing good prose. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
• I would move the image of Barnum up into the infobox, and try to fill in as many items as possible in the infobox. You might want to get a copy of the vertically formatted infobox here {{Infobox Person}}, since it's easier to read. Also use the {{death date and age}} template for his date of death in the infobox.

And that's all I see at the moment. Best of luck with the article! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Ricardiana

Prose review:

• "Barnum never flinched from his stated goal 'to put money in his own coffers.'" I think this would be better either as "his stated goal:" or as "his stated goal of putting".
• "He was a businessman, his profession was entertainment, and he was perhaps the first "show business" millionaire." Violates parallelism.
• "He denied saying "There's a sucker born every minute" but his rebuttal to critics was often "I am a showman by profession...and all the gilding shall make nothing else of me."[1]. " There shouldn't be two periods there. There are other typos in the article as well.
• "Barnum started as a store-keeper, and he learned haggling, striking a bargain, and using deception to make a sale." Perhaps this is just personal taste, but I think that the "and" should be "where." I also think that "started as" is a little colloquial; could you just say "B's first job was..." Finally, to my ear "haggling, striking" sounds awkward; you could put the verbs in the infinitive to avoid that.
• "He was involved with the lottery mania in the United States." This is vague. What do you mean? Also, what is your source? This whole "Early life" section lacks in-line citations.
• "The young husband had several businesses" Generally, paragraphs should begin with the subject's name, rather than a pronoun or some other, vaguer term. Also, I suggest using a stronger verb than "had" - "own", "oversaw", etc.
• "Joice Heth, claimed by Barnum to have been the nurse of George Washington, and to be over 160." I think you could condense this. Perhaps: "who, Barnum claimed, was over 160 years old and had been George Washington's nurse." Ergh - that's not great, but you get the idea.

...More later. Ricardiana (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Joice Heth died in 1836, no more than 80." This seems an irrelevant opening to the paragraph. Maybe it belongs at the end of the previous paragraph? Even so, I think you need to tell us more about why Heth's death was important for Barnum.
• Fourth full paragraph after the lead - this is the first paragraph after the lead to have an in-line citation. All of your paragraphs should have in-line citations, especially as (as someone pointed out on the article's talk page) Barnum was notorious for lying about his deeds and accomplishments.
• "In 1842, Barnum introduced his first major hoax, the "Feejee" mermaid, which he leased from fellow museum owner Moses Kimball of Boston, who became his friend, confidant, and collaborator. " This sentence has a lot of clauses, which is something I normally like. Here, though, it seems a bit much. I think you could break it up.
• "Though exploited, Tom Thumb enjoyed his job and had a good relationship with Barnum free of bitterness." Should be "that was free". Also, this seems quite POV. Do you have a source - a quotation from "Tom Thumb", perhaps?
• "In year 1843 Barnum hired the traditional Native American dancer fu-Hum-Me, the first of many Native Americans he presented." Another paragraph opener with no relation to the topic of the paragraph.
• External link to "amused" - I don't think is necessary. Also, external links within the text of an article are discouraged.
• "It opened the door to visits from royalty across Europe including the Czar of Russia and let him acquire dozens of attractions, including automatons and other mechanical marvels. " Avoid beginning sentences with "it." Also, I'm noticing a strong tendency to call Barnum "He" much more often than by his name. In general, the pronoun should only be used in a paragraph after the proper name, and I wouldn't use the pronoun in more than two consecutive sentences. I notice many places where you use "He" repeatedly - for example, the first two paragraphs of the section called "Diversified leisure-time activities."
• "his serious, nervous, and straitlaced wife" - very POV - need to change wording or give quotation from source.
• "he had piles of spending money, food and drink, and lived a carefree existence. " Another violation of parallelism; also "piles" is too colloquial.
• "A much-cited experience of Barnum as a legitimate impresario" - this reads awkwardly. Could it be "Barnum's first experience as a legitimate impresario"? I think "much-cited" would be unnecessary in an article with more in-line citations.
• "She was unpretentious, shy, and devout, and possessed a crystal-clear soprano voice projected with a wistful quality which audiences found touching. " Way POV. As above, you must cite such statements!
• "and "Jenny Lind items" were available" - what are "Jenny Lind items"?
• " to avoid seedy connotation and to attract a family crowd and to get the approval of the moral crusaders of New York City" - in general, try to avoid using repeated "and"s in a sentence. Also, "connotation" should be plural here.
• " But by 1856, the company went bankrupt sucking Barnum's wealth with it. " needs a comma.
• "Despite critics who predicted he could not revive the magic, Barnum went on to greater success." What magic? The magic of wonderment? Too POV and casual in tone.
• " Many circus historians credit Bailey with this innovation." Which historians? Why? ~This kind of statement is symptomatic of the article's major problem, which is a lack of sources, a lack of citations, and a lack of distinction between the encyclopedic authorial voice and the sources' voices.
• I'm not sure that the "Life and legacy" section needs a whole paragraph on Barnum's houses, especially as that is the only paragraph in the section about his "Life".
• "A statue in his honor was placed in 1893 at Seaside Park, by the water in Bridgeport." "In his honor" is implied if it's a statue of Barnum - is it? Or is it a statue of a circus elephant or something "in honor of" Barnum's circus? Also, I am not familiar with the location - what does "by the water" mean? A pool, the ocean....?
• "was perhaps the most famous American in the world" - source?
• "Some had every edition." Some people? Some publishers? Read? Owned? Collected?
• "At the end of the 19th century the number of copies printed was second only to the New Testament printed in North America." Source?

~

I think that further peer review of this article is not maximally helpful at this time, because what the article really needs is to incorporate more sources. After the article includes more sources, with in-line citations, then the organization will be easier to figure out. The prose will also change, possibly significantly, in the process of adding sources, so my suggestion is to do the work of incorporating sources and citing statements, and then come back for a peer review afterwards. Ricardiana (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Recognizance

User:Ricardiana is right about further review at this time. However, I do want to say that this is a topic I've been meaning to get around to working on for some time, and as I'm familiar with it, please feel free to leave me a note if you'd like help in the future or want to get a second opinion on something. I'm in possession of a copy of P. T. Barnum: The Legend and the Man but have yet to get beyond the first few pages or so because of time constraints.

Definitely a fascinating topic that would be great to see on the main page some day. Recognizance (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)