Talk:William Robinson Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article William Robinson Brown is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 17, 2015.

More tidbits about Brown on the net; not sure if it should be included, but would be good to keep track of this[edit]

More information on the Brown company, with more information on the senior Brown, who seems to have been notable in his own right (red-link worthy, I think): Article on Brown (More about lumber than anyone probably wants to know, but I guess there is always an interested audience)

William Brown was a Republican elector in 1924 (Coolidge), per the "Portsmouth Herald" of Thursday December 11, 1924, page 9. Guess there could be other William R. Browns in Berlin, NH, but not likely of high-enough esteem to be an elector:

Concord, Dec 11 - Gov Fred H. Brown Wednesday sent certificates of election as presidential electors from New Hampshire to the Republican candidates on Nov 4, Mrs William H. Schofield of Peterborough, Mrs. Annie B. Shepard of Derry, George A. Carpenter of Wolfeboro and William R. Brown of Berlin, and called upon them to assemble at the State House in this city on Ja. 12 for the purpose of casting the vote of the state for President and Vice President.

Also, this link has some info : 3rd president of Arabian Horse Association Strangely, I couldn't confirm it at the website of the AHA. Churn and change (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I have him as AHA prez in the article and can verify him as third from other sources, though sequence not all that needed, length of tenure more significant. I think we can verify the elector stuff, pretty easy. As for the rest, I think that [{Brown company]] would benefit from that material, and maybe a separate article on W.W. Brown would be cool, too. Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Pre-GA notes[edit]

My apologies that it took me a bit longer than I expected to get to this. As I said before, the article looks good overall, and has a good shot (IMO) at GA status. Here are a few thoughts for further consideration:

  • The lead needs to be expanded. It should be two solid or three smaller paragraphs for an article of this size.
  • Lead is usually the last thing I do before going to GA because so much often changes in final cleanup and prep. --MTBW
  • Brown Company career:
    • "because of the conflict against Germany in World War I." To my ear, this would sound better as "conflict with Germany".
    • "It was said he" By who?
    • We don't know. The source didn't say.  ;-) --MTBW Follow up but I noted the source, I think it was them --MTBW
    • Fourth paragraph - I have several questions about this. How did sawmills help the war effort? Did he attempt to go to France with the military or as a civilian? If the latter, who denied him?
Addressed. Source doesn't say "helped the war effort" and so took that out. Was commissioned as a major; source doesn't say he tried to go as an officer, though that is the implication. We now faithfully mirror the content and the implication in different words.
  • Actually, the Brown company piece you found was my source, will review, though. --MTBW
    • Conversion for acres.
  • Done -- MTBW
  • Arabian horse breeder:
    • "and others at other farms he owned" Repetitiveness - others/other.
    • Fact tag needs to be addressed.
    • I own the book, but it's about 500 pages long, will eventually get to it prior to submitting for GA. --MTBW
    • "including Brown, who purchased a total of 20 horses from Wilfrid in 1918, although only 17 actually made it to Brown’s stud farm." Why the discrepancy?
    • No one knows in sources I have consulted. Probably because of the legal spat between Blunt and Wentworth; they'd do stuff like steal horses back and forth between each other; at one point Blunt got sued because he was shooting horses to keep his daughter from getting them. (The guy was a real piece of work) --MTBW
    • Conversion pounds to dollars?
  • Probably unneeded, as we'd be talking early 20th century values, to boot, but if you want to play with it, maybe see the templates in some of the articles that do these historical conversions. --MTBW
    • "following her father's shenanigans." - "shenanigans" is a bit unencyclopedic, eh?
  • Yep, and for now I'm keeping it. (grin). However, if you have a good thesaurus and want to offer an alternative, I'm open to ideas. --MTBW
Addressed. The bankruptcy sale is indicated.
  • Wasn't a bankruptcy, Blunt was an idiot and held a fire sale to raise quick cash ;-) Still say "shenanigans" fits, but I can live without it. ;) --MTBW
    • "primarily interested in trying to sell him as many horses as possible," I thought she was trying to buy back horses?
    • First sentence, fourth paragraph, Foundation stock - run-on sentence, should be split.
Reworked the three sentences there, avoiding starting a sentence with a '*' and using he/she for the horses (confusing in a BLP of a person).
  • Lady Wentworth wanted to buy back all the GOOD horses that she'd lost to her father's fire sales; but then she'd practically banktrupted herself in doing so, thus had to sell a lot of said horses' offspring to pay the bills.--MTBW
    • "Seeking to prove the benefits..." Sentence needs a reference.
  • Tag the one you mean --MTBW Fixed --MTBW
    • "A third Arabian, another of Maynesboro's Arabians," Redundancy - Arabian/Arabians.
    • "most of the horses from his 1932 importation from Egypt." Specify "his".
Reworded the sentence so that "his" is coupled closely to the "who." If that is not ok, please let me know.

Thoughts on possible FA status later. Dana boomer (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaving the rest of the changes to the main contributor(s). Churn and change (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I hit the rest, how does it look now? Montanabw(talk) 05:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks great! Once the lead has been expanded, you should be good to go for a GA nom. Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A complete list of Brown's horses is here[edit]

We can't include the link even as an external one since it is a discussion forum, but the list is presented as exhaustive. Don't know if it is accurate. Churn and change (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, ABH is probably close to accurate but probably copied from the registry datasource, and definitely not WP:RS. The AHA datasource would have them all, but it's a paid database. I have the grand total number mentioned in the article, and the source was reliable for that. Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The "travel abroad" parts[edit]

The source says he was denied the opportunity to travel abroad (presumably to France) during WW I. I am not sure whether that implies he lost his commission, or whether remote oversight was a possibility. The wording now in the article implies the "opportunity" he lost was to serve.

Also, on international travels, the Churchill obituary notes his travels other than as an Arabian-horse breeder (Brown Bulletin, p. 10). I am not sure where to place it though:

"In 1926 he was a member of the U. S. delegation to the World Forestry Conference at Rome, Italy, and travelled through Sweden and Finland to study forestry. He was a member of a party sent to Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1934 by the Oberlander Trust to study forestry." Churn and change (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I read the source (I didn't see the bit on his being commissioned a major) to say he was just somehow in the pipeline to go but flunked the eye exam. I wouldn't go into too much minutae there. As for his other travels, I'd say maybe one sentence in the Brown company section might be relevant, but I'm not sure his forestry travels were all that world-changing for the overall field of forestry (study abroad and conference road trips?); while his travels to get horses were definitely game-changers in the Arabian horse industry. Montanabw(talk) 21:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Pumped up the lead per Dana's request. Churn and Dana, does it look OK? I'd like to put this up for GA this week, if possible. Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks a bit too long now. The article has around 3600 words, which should be roughly 21,000 characters (6 character average for a word; rather a high approximation). Per WP:LEADLENGTH that would be 2 or 3 paras in the lead; we have four paras, with two quite large ones. I know it is a pain to yoyo like that; I can trim it if you think that is a good idea. Churn and change (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, We get hit with the "lead isn't the right length" stuff every article I've been involved with. Let me see if I can whack it back a bit first, but I'd rather defend a bit too long over a bit too short. If you want to whack out redundancy or irrelevancy, I won't kick, and I sometimes DO write "long" but let's not chop just for the sake of chopping. Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree that it's a bit long. The general formula (from WP:LEAD), is <15,000 kb = 1-2 paragraphs, 15,000-30,000 kb = 2-3 paragraphs, and >30,000 kb = 3-4 paragraphs. Using this formula, I don't think I've ever been hit with a generic "the lead's too long" or "the lead's too short" complaint. Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I was able to whack it some and got it to three. See what y'all think now. Montanabw(talk) 23:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Cut a bit more; mostly shortening of sentences. I think you should go for the GA nomination now. Churn and change (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Did so. Here goes! Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

New sources, possibly better[edit]

Both by Rebecca Rule, stronger than the John Rule piece we have, but verifying some factoids. Now there is a question as to when Brown filed BK, there is a discrepancy. Montanabw(talk)

The first source above doesn't give the year; the second one says 1935, agreeing with Rule. Note that they could have entered receivership before filing for bankruptcy; per the dates in the various sources, that makes sense. Churn and change (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how it works in the US, or worked then, but here in the UK companies can go into administration before they're wound up if no buyers/investors can be found. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, first, thanks for the review. Second, yes, courts can force companies into receivership first, effectively taking over the administration, well before bankruptcy. I think that procedure is fairly old. I think it wouldn't be SYNTH to state exactly what the sources say: receivership in 1933–34 and filing for bankruptcy in 1935. Churn and change (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd be pretty sure that's exactly what happened, hence the apparent date discrepancy. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to see if I can actually locate the case, BK law is all federal and there should be a record in LEXIS or one of the other paid legal databases. If I can find a case number, I may be able to pull it up. The new sources are also be someone with the last name "Rule." Probably the people are related; parent/child or spouses, or something... Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Replace infobox image?[edit]

It looks as though the infobox image of Brown is copyrighted, while lower down in the article there exists a free photo of Brown and his wife of suitable encyclopedic quality. Per WP:NFCC#1, doesn't it make sense to remove the nonfree image from this page and replace it with the free one? BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 00:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There are about five extant photos of Brown, and they are reused all over the place, the infobox image is in the same article where Churn found the other, I think. I'll see if we can just get a free version of the image; at the time it was inserted, the only place we found it was in a video, but we've since come across it in other sources. Montanabw(talk) 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Pre-FA run commentary[edit]

Churn, moving discussion here from your talk page. On the "sources," section, do you think we really need to put the two newspaper articles there, when most of the other periodicals are just listed in the notes? Or should we move all the periodicals into sources, with short cites in the notes? We'd need to move Steen, Rule, and some of the others for sure. Do we have guidance in the MOS as to what to put where? I'm also going to drop a note on another editors page for advice? Montanabw(talk) 21:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a bunch of options:
  • Move everything to "sources"
    This has the advantage of consistency. Also looks clean. We can use the "author-last-name year" or "short-title publication year" formats for the tags.
    It has two disadvantages I can see: 1. Editing citations will need either editing the article as a whole, or leaving a "red" tag in for a while. 2. It is harder to track where all a source is being used in the article; a reader needs to know the associated tag. It would be nice if the {{sfn}} template could show the tag used, but I don't believe it can as of now.
  • Move exactly what needs to be in "sources" to sources. These would be references, with different page numbers cited in different parts, and videos with different time-points cited in different parts. The {{r}} template doesn't allow adding either. If the same page number is used in all references to a source, we could still use the {{r}} template and leave it in the notes section.
  • I like this option best. That way, we move the two newspapers up, perhaps a few other things, but the books and the video stay, along with any periodicals where we cited to different pages. Simple, elegant, solves the problem. Montanabw(talk) 19:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Move a set we define, say books and videos, to the sources section, and leave the rest in the notes section. Barack Obama, for example, has just books in the "sources" section and everything else in the "notes" section. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace also largely have books in the sources section. The disadvantage is it will be hard for others to understand the logic of what is where, and this could slowly break over time. Adenanthos cuneatus, for example, seems to have wound up with a system for partitioning that I can't decode. Bob Marshall (wilderness activist) looks to be another example; seems like they started with books and journals in the sources section, and wound up with a journal in the notes section too.
  • If we move just books and the videos to the "sources" section, I suspect the second and third options wind up the same.
I think the MOS is agnostic as to the citation system. We could ask at WT:MOS but if preceding threads are any indication, we will wind up with a long debate and not a clear answer. Asking others seems the best bet. Churn and change (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK with current basic layout for citations, I too am agnostic about format, the only thing I see FAC reviewers get picky about is inconsistency. So long as we can point to something in MOS that says our way is OK, we should be good, whatever we do. Montanabw(talk) 19:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, option 2 looks good to me too. I will check to see what I can find in the MOS. Churn and change (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Found Help:Shortened footnotes#NoAuthor kind of supporting our idea of short-title/publication/year for cases of no author; and WP:Citing sources#Multipages as guideline support for option #2.
I think I'll put the article up for peer review now, my eyes have been on it too long and I'd like to see what pops up from those new to the article. Any objections? Dana usually does this with her FAs prior to running them up the FAC flagpole, usually gives lead editors a breather. If youa re groovy with that, I'll do so tomorrow or after I hear from you, whichever is the next time I'm online Montanabw(talk) 22:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


Much as I REALLY hate to say this, to be consistent with what we just agreed to in terms of what's in refs and what's in sources, we probably need to paginate Churchill and Steen. (yuck!) As I have the hardcopy of the Steen article, I have to do that one (as well as Wentworth), so could you (humbly) paginate the Churchill article? Unless you can cook up a good reason why we don't have to do either of them? (Best excuse I have is both are magazine articles of only a few pages, but is that a good enough excuse??) Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, done. Moved some refs to references from sources, since we either use no page numbers, or use the same page number throughout, for them. Also updated the photo of Brown on a horse. Yeah, I think we could go for a peer review now. Churn and change (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Groovy, I'll put it up. Must get Steen article from elsewhere and remember to bring it to computer... Montanabw(talk) 17:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As a quick comment, things are looking pretty good here - I think that a run at FAC would go well at this point. I re-read through a few areas that had changed quite a bit from my pre-GA look-through, and the article as a whole looks quite solid. Good luck at FAC! Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Source note[edit]

Great article from 1920 Cavalry journal, written by Spencer Borden, mentions Brown, though not by name:;view=1up;seq=192;q1=Astraled;start=1;size=10;page=search;num=168