Wikipedia:Peer review/Ezra Meeker/archive1

Ezra Meeker

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to take it to FAC and would like some feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw:

• Once the PR is done and any article text adjusted, I'd take a whack at smoothing out the prose a bit more in the lede. The first paragraph is sort of a summary of the subsequent paragraphs, which makes it a bit choppy. I have a few style and grammar tweaks I'd recommend as well, but no sense messing with the lede until everything else is done, so this is just a heads up that it should be refined a bit more. I'd also add more on his promotion of a national highway and the US 30 bit to the lead.

There is no actual connection between Meeker and U.S. 30 that I am aware of. It parallels the Trail, yes, but that is because the Trail is an easy road because animals had to climb it. There was going to be a highway that way anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, the prose is a bit stilted at times, may want to look at replacing words like "forebears" with "ancestors," or " unprepossessing" with "unimpressive," for example. I'm thinking in terms of the remedy of six rules, that clearer prose, shorter or simpler word are desirable.
• Almost all sources are hardcopy, are there URL links to Google books or to online sources based on the same information that could be used to support these print sources? Your reputation as an editor is unimpeachable (particularly after your work on Nixon, pun intended), but I wonder if some reviewers would raise a concern at FAC about an article entirely sourced via hardcopy. Do the Oregon or Washington Historical Societies, for example, have summaries of some of this same information online that could serve as backup sources?

Most of the material I either own or photographed at the libraries. I can easily provide copies to any questioning reviewers. Still, I will look for google books links for the books that are not already pd.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Consider wikilinking some historical terms such as "yoke of oxen" and "patent nostrums". The non-historian may not understand some of these concepts.
• If possible, consider replacing the word "Indians" with the name of the actual tribal people met. It's a bit more respectful. There is a lot of debate over whether to say "Indian" or "Native American" also, but if you can identify the actual tribe, a link to that group's wikipedia article would solve any potential PC concerns. If you can't, I can work on that phrasing a bit and perhaps User:Uyvsdi can make suggestions on behalf of WP Indigenous peoples of North America.

The sources are not always consistent on what tribes were involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ditto terms like "white man." When possible, gender-neutral language is better. "No white settlers" would work (I don't see the need for "European-American" in this context)
• "Early days" section might be enhanced by a historic photo (or even a current color one) of Mount Rainier, given that Meeker liked the view. (I presume the absence of any photos of the land is because of the rather unattractive old prison sitting on it now?)

Meeker doesn't include any photos of his claims in his books that I have seen (although they went through a number of editions). Maybe one of the drawings of Meeker which illustrate the text, I imagine Meeker approved them as "looks like me" when they were published.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• "treaties were signed" is pretty passive. Perhaps verify that you are discussing the Treaty of Medicine Creek and wikilink to it.

• Question: Would it be advisable to mention somewhere that hops are an important ingredient in brewing beer? There is, of course, the wikilinking, but I'm wondering if it would be helpful; particularly if Meeker had buyers that founded the major breweries of that area. (Thinking of examples such as Olympia Brewing Company and Rainier Brewing Company or their predecessors.

I saw something on this and will find it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, the article is technically quite sound, but the phrasing at times is awkward or archaic-sounding. If it would help, I could do a copyedit run-through and at least provide new eyes to a few of the sections.

Feel free, thanks. My legal training shows all over my articles, I'm afraid.

• Question: Is Pacific Creek (Sweetwater County, Wyoming) a suitable wikilink for Pacific Springs or not?

I'm not sure. Apparently there were about 25 people living there at the time … I'd rather leave it red, maybe it will inspire someone.

• As noted above, I'd put a bit more emphasis on his support of the idea of a national highway. Is it venturing into WP:OR territory to link his advocacy to the later creation of the Interstate Highway System?

I'll look to see if I can find anything in the 1950s mentioning Meeker

• I'd also add a tidbit about the half-dollar to the lead.

I am reluctant, my coin articles have been moving through FAC very slowly and I'm afraid including a mention would be a problem ...

• More to come That's all for now. Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I'll work though these in detail. If I haven't posted a response, it means I agree and will make the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by PumpkinSky:

• Web refs are in what I call cite web style. Most but not all books are in sfn. Why are some not sfn? This isn't consistent.PumpkinSky talk 01:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Which isn't?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, they are newspapers. Didn"t you used to have two Price books in it? PumpkinSky talk 09:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, just Larson with two. There are a fair number of stories by Price though.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is just the beginning, comments on the first few sections. I shall be reviewing in instalments. By the way, I thought the Migration section was particularly good.

Lead

• The start of the second sentence reads slightly oddly - I think it's the jump from his youthfuljourney along the trail, to "Beginning in his 70s". I think "Late in life..." would read more smoothly.
• Word order: "the following year they with their newborn son set out for the Oregon Territory" - more naturally, "the following year, with their newborn son, they set out for the Oregon Territory".

Early life

• "They had four sons..." - needs more than a pronoun, as you have mentioned several Meekers since the happy couple.
• The 1839 move to Indiana is mentioned twice in the second paragraph
• There is a link article for Printer's devil.

Migration to Oregon Territory

• Second line "intended ... intended" (quite different meanings, noun and verb)
• "That was alright with Eliza Jane..." sounds colloquial rather than encyclopedic
• "they decided with finality" → "they finally decided"
• "When the party reached the Mississippi River, they were met by Oliver Meeker, as well as by some friends..." It would be useful to know how far they travelled to reach the river, and also how Oliver came to be there to meet them. Has he travelled on ahead?

Mr. Larson was good enough to send me an article showing that Oliver actually came to Eddyville. I don't have the mileage but will check my sources. My mistake, it was the Missouri, I've corrected that now.

According to Mr. Larson, Oliver actually came to Eddysville. I have fudged this pending getting a RS on this point.

• "he possessed $2.75" - to clarify, this was his cash. He had cattle and other possessions.

More soon. Incidentally, you might want to look at the red "error" messages in the sources section. On this, see also my talkpage, and a thread I've started on the FAC talk. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw, but due to travel, I will have to let others carry forth this battle. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I managed to fix a couple of the red messages; someone else dealt with the others, so the article is now a red-free zone. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I will have to go through other articles and see what damage has been done by the template puzzlements.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Next section:

Territorial pioneer - Early days

• "They used it as a lodging house for the workers" - maybe "operated it" rather than "used it".
• Suggest pipe link Claim to Land claim
• Why not start calling him "Meeker" from this section? The few references to Oliver can be handled without confusion.
• "the lands north of the Columbia would become its own territory" - "the lands" and "its" do not match, but the phrasing is awkward anyway; I suggest you pipe link "territory" to Territories of the United States, and reword to "a separate territory"
• "Later in 1853, they received a three-month-old letter from Ezra and Oliver's father..." This would be better expressed as "Later in 1853, the Meeker brothers received a three-month-old letter from their father".
• "They immediately responded that Oliver would be with them..." - since "they" and "them" are different, this needs rephrasing. Watch also for "their" later in the sentence.
• "filed a claim of" → "filed a claim for" (otherwise a difficult "of...of"
• "The 1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek purchased lands from the Indians". A treaty cannot itself purchse anything. It can enable the purchase of land, but you need to say by whom.
• The next sentence begins "The treaties..." Only one has been mentioned.
• "restricted" might be better than "limited"

Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall get to these as time permits. I see nothing with which I would disagree. Most likely I will wait until it is off the main page as DYK.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A few more

"Hop King of the World"

• What are "hildings"? Typo for "holdings"?
• Confusion: are "John Valentine Meeker" and "John Meeker" the same person, and whose brother was he?
• "As hops were not then grown there, the cost of transport from Britain or New York made his operations expensive." Don't see the point of this sentence, since the info is not followed up.
• As the second para is all about hop-growing, the final sentence, unheralded, seems out of place.
• Can you be a bit clearer about the purpose of the pamphlet? The narrative has lost some clarity here; for example, what was Cooke's scheme that he hired Meeker to drum up interest in?
• "platted" is an unfamiliar term - does it mean "marked out"? And the following verb should be "surrounded"
• "duplicated elsewhere" - "duplicated" implies "elsewhere", surely?
• He later admitted that the pronunciation of the name caused confusion when he visited England, while remains difficult for non-locals." Last phrase does not parse with the rest of the sentence.

Ruin and Klondike

• "With thousands of others, he floated down the Yukon River once the ice broke up..." I have a wonderful mental image...but what did they float on?
• I have made a number of small copyedits to this section

Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've got those. While the crowdsourcing during a very busy DYK day was helpful, I think a couple of small errors also crept in, but they are fixed now. I've made it clearer why he named it Puyallup. My attempts at the library there to avoid pronouncing the name led to slight embarrassment, so I've been there in more ways than one ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the rest

Preparation for 1906 trip

• "Meeker long contemplated" → "Meeker had long contemplated"
• "By 1900 he was convinced..." - but then suddenly we're in the Puyallup of 1906. We need some sense of what Meeker was doing in thse five years, by way of reparation etc
• "Meeker was able to find a pair of oxen" - why not: "Meeker found a pair of oxen"?
• "the berry patch" - no idea what this is
• "Five dollars to one of the James children sealed the deal." That's magazine prose, not encyclopedia prose
• "it" needs defining in: "Some of Meeker's friends tried to talk him out of it"
• punc after 1905 needs to be stronger than a comma

Return to the Trail (1906–1908)

• "went by train" → "went ahead by train"?
• "...to make arrangements" - arrangements for what?
• Link odometer
• Try to avoid the "Often...often" repetition
• The explanatory note (a) provides information that ought to be cited.
• "yet another cow" seems excessive when only two have been mentioned.
• "indignant editorials met any perceived affront to Meeker" - I can't work this out.
• "After a return to Eddyville" → "After a visit to Eddyville"
• It might be as well to remind readers who "Mardon" is; I had forgotten him
• There is a lack of clarity in the prose after: "Meeker went home from Pittsburgh..." Do you mean he went back to Puyallup? And then "on his return..." - return where? And then I'm totally confused by the movements of the expedition, and by "Meeker proceeded north..." Why did he go north?

Advocate for the Oregon Trail (1909–1925)

• It is not really clear why the Exposition lost Meeker so much money. Was his exhibition and restaurant a commercial failure?

The quote from Larsen is "Ezra opened a very large pioneer exhibit and a restaurant at the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific held in Seattle in the summer of 1909. He reports that he was not financially successful, and that he lost all the money he had made selling his postcards on the Monument Expedition." I've corresponded with Larsen, and expect that he means he is taking what Meeker said in good faith, but is open to the possibility of a lie. Meeker did, you know!

• I don't know how the American legislature works, but can a bill pass the House with a condition? Or was this "condition" a proviso within the bill? I don't know how the Secretary for War comes in; why did the bill not make a simple, once-off appropraiation?

Congress did not, I gather, want to get into a money pit, making an appropriation not sufficient to the work, and have Meeker coming back demanding more. We're talking about a time when Congress spent hardly any money on preservation, and what national parks there were, were run by the military. Horace Albright wrote an excellent book on the founding of the National Park Service in 1916 which details similar struggles. I'll rephrase. However, I find the phrasing in the sources unsatisfying to my legal mind and will query Mr. Larsen on the subject.

• I see that the Bill did not become law - clarify why (defeated in the Senate?) and what effect this defeat had on the issue of the financing of monuments.

See above.

• The date or year of the Meeker-Cal meeting should be indicated in the image caption.

Meeker reaches the end of the trail (1925–1928)

• Section heading is figurative, I'm not sure how encyclopedic that is.

I suppose so. Still, it's irresistible (not original, though, one of Lori Price's articles is very similarly titled). I'm going to leave it in for now and see who salutes.

• Third paragraph: were the statue and the pergola built? The text says "sought to..." in each case.

Certainly. I have a picture of the dedication, with Meeker standing in front of it looking surprised. Even though the picture is PD as printed in an uncopyrighted pamphlet, I'm not certain about the statue as the sculptor did not die until 1946. I plan to bring it up at MCQ. In the interim, I'll rephrase.

• "carmaker": I didn't recognise this as a word at first (I'm not sure that it is). I don't honestly think Ford needs a description, but if you think he does, could he be styled "industrialist", or some such?
• "I think you fall ill "with", or possibly "from", but "of" does not sound right.
• Citation string at the end seems excessive.

I've looked it over and moved one ref. Two of the three citations at the end of the paragraph are justifying one phrase each (the erection of the tombstone in 1939, for example), and it would be difficult to do this any other way.

Aftermath and legacy

• Superfluous information - Driggs's age at death
• "The half dollars → "The commemorative half dollars..."
• "abusive" seems an odd word in this context. Does it have a particular meaning in law?

I have much enjoyed learning about old Ezra. As a general point, some of the prose could perhaps do with further polish (I've made a few fixes myself) but nothing of great consequence. This is an important historical article that will, after the necessary brushings up, make a fine FAC. The images are admirable, though I've not checked the licencing - I'm sure there'll be no problem there. Please ping me if you want me to do a final readthrough of the prose before the FAC; otherwise, just let me know when it's there. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It may not be next to FAC, I don't know yet, I'm waiting on more data from the author I mentioned, who is busy with RL things at present. But it should wind up there this spring. I'd be grateful for another run-through. All done or commented on.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

First batch, to end of Ruin and Klondike

• Lead
  • "Once known as the Hop King of the World, he became the first mayor of Puyallup, Washington." – This reads as though there is a connection between the first and second statements, but is there?
• Migration to Oregon Territory (1852)
  • "set forth in a wagon" – perhaps a touch literary: might "set out" be plainer?
  • "Oliver Meeker was stricken with illness." – I get muddled after this as to which Meeker you refer to. It was presumably Oliver recovering but was it he or Ezra estimating and remembering?
  • "Only one of the livestock did not complete the trip" – I wonder if "all but one of the livestock completed the trip" might flow better?
• Early days
  • "-the region's later capital" – either a comma or an em-dash wanted here rather than the hyphen.
  • "The Meeker claim is today the former site of" – possibly just The Meeker claim was later the site of… ?
• Hop King of the World"
  • "Hops are used to flavor beer" – oughtn't this to be mentioned earlier in the para?
  • "it still remains difficult for non-locals" – as you particularly mention the pronunciation I wonder if it would be helpful to copy and paste the IPA gen from the Puyallup article?

More soonest. – 09:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Done those except I think I will leave the IPA for the reader. Thank you for the review, looking forward to more at your convenience.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Concluding batch from Tim

• Preparation for 1906 trip
  • "grew along the Trail, it vanished" – I'm being really pernickety here but I think this would flow better as "grew along it, the Trail vanished." Merely a suggestion.
  • "He figured that public interest" – to a British eye "figured" seems very informal, but ignore me if it's perfectly formal in US usage.
  • "Meeker set forth" – again, I might be inclined to go for "out" rather than "forth" (but on the other hand, perhaps a literary flourish isn't out of place in the circumstances).
• Advocate for the Oregon Trail (1909–1925)
  • "In 1923, Meeker was master of ceremonies" – perhaps "he" rather than "Meeker" here?
• Meeker reaches the end of the trail (1925–1928)
• "a provision in the law allowing the organization to buy up the issue" – not clear which organization we are looking at here; perhaps "an organization" or "a specified organization" rather than "the organization"?

That's my lot, except for the suggestion that you might put a caption under the info-box portrait giving either the year the picture was taken or Meeker's age at the time. I extravagantly enjoyed this article. What a splendid old boy! Thank you for letting me make his acquaintance. – Tim riley (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I've implemented those. Thanks for the review. I agree, Meeker is amazing, one of a kind if you ask me, which I regret, because he was so much fun to write about! As Katisha once said, "Where will I find another?"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

After a final readthrough: I can't see any problems; the article tells a compellling story and reads very well. One small change worth considering is the addition of a sentence to the second lead paragraph about the Meekers' original wagon journey. That story is one of the high points of the article, yet in the lead we are only told that the family set out, and where they ended up. A further sentence would do no harm. I am sure the article will be well received at FAC and look forward to seeing it there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I've done as you suggest. I will leave the PR open for a few more hours, then will close it and nominate at FAC. My thanks to all the reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)