Talk:Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 13:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that according to a biography of John D. Rockefeller, "At times ... Rockefeller sounded more like Karl Marx than our classical image of the capitalist"?

• Source: "Chernow proposes a shrewder thought: 'At times, when he railed against cutthroat competition and the vagaries of the business cycle, Rockefeller sounded more like Karl Marx than our classical image of the capitalist.'" Morrow, Lance. (June 15, 1998) "Oil in the family". Time Magazine. Vol. 151, no. 23.

ALT1: ... that author Ron Chernow was reluctant to write a biography of John D. Rockefeller until being shown a 1,700-page transcript of a three-year-long private interview with the man?

• Source: "The archivist then brought out this 1700-page transcript of an interview that had been privately commissioned by the family in the nineteen-teens, privately conducted over a three-year period ... I read about twenty-five pages of that interview, closed it, and called my editor, and said I was doing the book." Frumkes, Lewis. (January 1999). "A Conversation With ... Ron Chernow". Writer. Vol. 112, No. 1.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Detroit Lions Pro Bowl selections

Moved to mainspace by DrOrinScrivello (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC).

• Article is long enough and new enough (moved to mainspace same day as DYK nom). It's well-written, free from copyvio, and well-sourced. Both hooks are interesting and sourced, although the sources are inaccessible. QPQ is done. Approving on good faith. Thank you for the submission! Kimikel (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Making a note before promoting. The cited source was available via Wikipedia Library. In an interview the author said he was "trying to wriggle out of writing this book" which also verifies the "reluctant" part. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Nice work thus far! There are multiple additional reviews of this biography available via ProQuest and Newspapers.com, available in the WP:TWL bundle. Also how long was it on bestseller lists, and any other info on sales figures? czar 11:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips - I think my mistake when searching for sources for this article was using the search bar at the top of the Wikipedia Library and not going in to specific databases and searching them individually. I use Newspapers.com for local history research all the time, don't know why it didn't occur to me for book reviews! I'll make some additions to the article shortly, thanks again. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DrOrinScrivello (talk · contribs) 22:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 02:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to this review! I typically like to make the relatively small tweaks myself and just leave comments about bigger-picture items, though of course as always with editing you should feel to modify any changes I may make. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review! I'm eager for any feedback you have, and I'm already liking the suggestions you've made. I'll be tackling those today. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This was a real pleasure to review! I have two modest suggestions below for the prose -- smoothing out some bumpiness with the Marx comparison, and considering a bit more emphasis on the scope retirement/philanthopy part ofthe book -- and once you've had a chance to look at those, I'll be happy to pass the GA. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, care, and diligence in this review. I believe I've addressed your concerns, but please let me know if I'm neglecting anything (or introduced any new errors!). DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you quick and effective edits! The article was in great shape to begin with, but I am now very happy to mark it as a Good Article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

Prose

• I feel like the sentence that begins As the 1990s began... is asking me to do a fair bit of mental work with jumping around timelines. What about backing up a little farther and going chronologically? Something like "Rockefeller died in X year, and there there Y biographies of him. Nevins published a big one, and and then in the 90s it was 50 years since somebody had tackled the subject." ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done Hopefully it flows a little better now. Let me know if you think it still needs work. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    • This is great, thank you! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• In all other respects the lead and Background sections are top-notch -- clear, engaging, with a great balance of detail and big-picture. Well done. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Thinking about breadth: for book articles, I always like to see some kind of themes section, or style, or other analysis of the book. In this case, I think that material is actually here in the reception section, but I want to suggest considering a different organization. To my mind, statements like "it got positive reviews", "it was a bestseller", "it was nominated for an award" are all statements about reception, whereas the discussion of Chernow's neutrality is information from the reception/reviews but about other traits of the book. I think you could consider splitting much of it out into a section called something like "Moral evaluation of Rockefeller"... and I think you could move the paragraph about Microsoft (currently in the Background section) into Reception instead. That would make it more clear where the article is providing its analysis. But since the analysis is present, I won't insist if you dislike the idea. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done I completely understand your argument here. The article now has an Analysis section - though I did modify your suggestion by combining the paragraph about Microsoft from Background with a review about the Microsoft angle and put them in Analysis rather than Reception; I feel it works better there, but let me know if you disagree. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I like your take on it! Thanks for being open to a re-structuring. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Regarding copyvio: Earwig is clean and I see no red flags as I carry out the source review. Well done on avoiding the temptations of close paraphrase, especially since many of these sources have very appealing turns-of-phrase. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• These three sentences make for a bumpy read: Rockefeller, like Karl Marx before him, recognized the "anarchy of production" that plagued unfettered capitalism.[1] His fellow oil refiners waged vicious price wars and refused to taper production even when new oil discoveries glutted the market with product.[1] Chernow writes, "At times, when he railed against cutthroat competition and the vagaries of the business cycle, Rockefeller sounded more like Karl Marx than our classical image of the capitalist."[9] I wonder if the two Marx comparisons could be combined into one sentence? I can't fully articlate what throws me off here, but maybe you can just give it a second look. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Done I see what you mean, and think I made it more easily understood. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• No other quibbles with the prose! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Images

• The caption for this image says he is 22, but this appears to be the same image as this image which appears in his bio article with the claim that he is 18. Any idea which article/image needs correction? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Actually, I looked into it a little, and the one on his bio comes from this Project Gutenberg book from 1909 which says he is 18, whereas the other one comes from, um...... whatever this is. So this article should identify him as 18, and consider switching to the other image file too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Good catch. Image switched, caption fixed. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• There are so many vivid images on this subject, I feel like they should get used! What do you think about pairing this painting and this caricature or this one to capture the dichotomy of public image? It could make sense with the information from reviews assessing Chernow's neutrality. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Added a couple of images to the Analysis section. Went ahead and added alt text to all images for good measure. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Good catch with the alt text, I should have checked that! I added the alt text for the image in the infobox, too. As for the added portraits, thanks for indulging me-- I think they fit very well in the new Analysis section. All the images look good to me now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Source check

• I like to random-sample 10 or 10% of the footnotes, whichever is more. In this case, I'll be checking footnotes 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19 (as they're numbered in this diff).~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

2. Article says Rockefeller profited by ... convincing the major East Coast railroads to give his company sweetheart deals on the shipment of his productby convincing the major East Coast railroads to give his company sweetheart deals on the shipment of his product but I don't see which part of this source verifies that; it describes a collusion with the railroads that was planned but did not occur. But, Titan itself would also be a perfectly acceptable source here, ideally with a page number. The other uses of this source look good!

 Done You're correct that the particular collusion described by the provided source did not end up occurring, but plenty of secret deals still happened after the events of the South Improvement Company. Standard was just smarter about not letting them be known publicly. I added a second source and modified the wording to closer match what the source says, though I may add Titan itself once I get a copy back from the library in a couple of days, ha. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this was a nitpick about verifiability rather than actual accuracy -- thanks for adjusting the sourcing here, looks good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also cite this source for the first sentence of the reception, Titan was met with mostly positive reviews. You are in the lucky position of having a retrospective source here which actually does directly say that Titan received rave reviews, so you can attribute that big-picture assessment! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

4. Looks great. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

6. Also great, everything verifies. Though I notice here an emphasis on the length and complexity of Rockefeller's retirement, e.g., this source says Two activities absorbed him throughout his 40-year retirement: philanthropy and golf. To the former he brought the same intensity that marked his business career, with similar results. ... he transformed philanthropy into a business of its own. ... The foundation became a model for philanthropic enterprise much as the Standard Oil trust had been for business enterprise. Wheras the wiki article maybe undersells it a little with After he retired, Rockefeller devoted much of his time to massive philanthropic efforts. It sounds like a substantial focus of Chernow's biography is spelling out the details and intensity of this retirement period -- this source also says Rockefeller's most notable -- and notorious -- creation, Standard Oil, occupies center stage in only 13 of the 35 chapters in this mammoth study. Perhaps the retirement paragraph in the synopsis could give a little more emphasis to the idea that this is a major topic of the book? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, also potentially relevant here is the idea that Chernow establishes that Rockefeller had been making charitable donations since before Rockefeller was rich: that's been mentioned in several of these reviews of something that doesn't seem to have been known before this biography. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've fleshed out the post-retirement section with some further detail. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

7. All good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

9. Wasn't able to access this one, but no red flags. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

10. Checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

11. All good. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

14. Good here too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

17. Yep. You're not giving me much work to do here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

19. And this is good too. Well done with a squeaky-clean source review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.