Pere Marquette Lumber Company was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite its name, the Pere Marquette Lumber Company ranked among the largest salt and lumber producers in the state of Michigan?
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of
forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles
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.
Okay, something odd is going on here. I found the page with the quote, and at the top of the page it clearly says p. 104. I coped the ulr address here, yet when I click on in page 84 comes up. Can't figure. Anyway. The citation is good. I'll finish up the review within the next day. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
22:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Article is new enough and hook is within limits. However, while the two sources for the hook cover the large quantities of salt and lumber produced, they don't seem to support the idea that the company was among the largest such producers. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
21:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Gwillhickers Thanks for the prompt review.
Huh? Perhaps you missed it. The second quoted source says exactly that. "The Pere Marquette Lumber Company ranks among the largest salt and lumber producers of the State." [Emphasis added.] 7&6=thirteen (
☎)21:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Okay, something odd is going on here. I found the page with the quote, and at the top of the page it clearly says p. 104. I copied the ulr address to here, yet when I click on the url link here page 84 comes up. Can't figure. Anyway. The citation is good. I'll finish up the review within the next day. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
22:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
The article looks g2g, however, I was only a few minutes into the review when this issue came up. Let me go through it more thoroughly, just to make sure. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
22:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Article is new enough, long enough, and hook is interesting and within limits. Images are in the P.D. No dup links. Other than general titles, no close paraphrasing detected with Earwig's dup detector. Some pages in the Nagle, (2015) source are not viewable, however, will AGF on those citations. You might want to expand the lede a bit. In any case, the article/nomination is Good to Go. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
22:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)reply
References
Suggestion
7&6=thirteen — The History section starts right off with Ludington's failing health, and then follows with the events and such that preceded this advent. For better narrative flow I would recommend moving that first paragraph further down in the section, with the appropriate adjustments in grammar. The first sentence/paragraph might start out something like this : e.g."The lumber baron and founder of Ludington, James Ludington, owned 360 acres that included the lots of the village of Pere Marquette in Mason County in the northwestern part of Michigan...". --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Gwillhickers Good suggestion. You are right. In my work (which involves a lot of writing) I know that chronological is better, generally.
Here however, I was not the original author, and I am slow to interfere with the creative decisions made by
Doug Coldwell. He is a first rate contributor to Wikipedia, and I respect his efforts. So I try to tread lightly. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)22:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Doug, thanks. Yes, chronology is usually best, esp in the opening sentence(s) to the lede or given section. Once in a while, however, we can jump forward to connect or clarify a point made in the present, etc. Also, I hope 7+6=thirteen's and my few edits were received well. Interesting history. A beer for you and 7+6=thirteen. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
23:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)reply
In the History section there seems to be a sentence that needs clarification:
"The company had the capability to produce about four barrels of salt per day and annually produced over 90,000 barrels of salt. "
Four barrels a day x 365 days in a year would give an annual yield of only 1460 barrels. How are we getting 90,000 barrels? Seems we're missing an explanation here. e.g.Did the company start out producing 4 barrels of salt a day, and then stepped up production? --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
00:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)reply
"The officers of the new company were Delos L. Filer as president, John Mason Loomis as treasurer, and L. H. Foster with James Ludington as secretaries." - Since the full names are given in the preceding sentence, Filer and Loomis can just be referred to by their last names for conciseness' sake.
"The officers of the new company were Delos L. Filer as president, John Mason Loomis as treasurer, and L. H. Foster with James Ludington as secretaries." - Were L. H. Foster and Ludington both secretaries? If so, swap the and and the with. If not, L. H. Foster's title needs to be specifically stated and secretaries should be singular
Done
The company shouldn't be referred to as "they". They is a plural noun, and a company is a singular legal entity in the US, even if there are multiple officers.
Lead could use some more information. For instance, the name of the founder, the dates active, and any important things that happened to the company should be mentioned
Is the article expanded to a state that you feel like an infobox would be warranted? I have a personal bias towards infoboxes, so I'll leave this as a judgment call for you