# Talk:Walter W. Law

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walter W. Law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CorporateM (talk · contribs) 00:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


### Lead
The Lead could use more detail about his early life and death to be representative of the article
Will do.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Is that well-worded and summarizing enough?--ɱ (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It could use some high-level context on what Briarcliff is in addition to listing the different operations he created there
Will do, although I'm not sure it should be so high-level. The Briarcliff article already goes into good detail, so I think it's best to just mention it's a 7,000-person village.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
That's along the lines of what I was thinking. CorporateM (Talk) 02:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, done. Changed to 8,000-person. The 2010 census lists 7,867, which rounds to 8,000, and the 2013 census estimate for Briarcliff is 8,017.--ɱ (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Some explanation would be helpful on how he made money from Briarcliff and when he created it
There are citations saying that specific businesses of his were successful, but of the sources I've used and read on him, none state that he made profit from them. The companies also were largely for the village and I doubt there are records of when they were first created, but I'll look that up. The lodge and farms I will be able to find a date for.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking more like "In the 1880s and 1890s he... From his properties, he sold millions of roses and became the largest dairy producer..."
Ok, I can do that.--ɱ (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


### Early life
"of carpet manufacture in Britain" -> "of carpet manufacturing in Britain"
done.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"is parents were strict Nonconformists" Does the source directly support "strict"?
The source (which there's a text of here) uses the term 'stern Nonconformists'. Either works for me.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"having found an interest in the US from reading" -> "having read about the US and gained an interest in it"
done.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
If we don't have exact dates for the second paragraph, we could say "in the 1860s" for the American Civil War to provide some frame of reference
done.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"His district's Member of Parliament sent him 10 pounds, but knowing his parents needed the money, Law sent it back to them" Do the sources suggest this is a significant event in his life?
No, but it's good to go into detail with a biography, right?--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't really think 10 pounds is worth mentioning.  CorporateM (Talk) 02:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it shows he cared more about his parents even when he had little money. It may also have been concocted to make Law seem better. I'll remove it.--ɱ (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"Sloane hired him more out of kindness than need." When we cover something like somebody's intentions or reasoning, we should be cautious and use attribution
I know that I didn't make up that phrasing, one of the sources uses it. It's not the Carnegie work or Cheever book, which I just checked, it's not the Palisade Ave source because that was just for the one sentence, so it's probably stated in the 1977 history book, which has no digital copies, and one at the historical society and local library, which I can go to within a few days to verify, if you'd like.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
If you don't want to make the trip, I will still pass it without it. The article could also be just as well without it. Or looking it up and adding attribution could also work. CorporateM (Talk) 02:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The distance isn't a problem, it's less than two miles from my house, but I'll likely get there sometime this weekend. (Which is fine; just giving you the heads-up)--ɱ (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Update: I was wrong, it's stated in that way here.--ɱ (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


### Later life
The "later life" section spans 30 years of his life. I wonder if there is a way to restructure it differently, perhaps with a Briarcliff section

Shouldn't "early life" and "later life" each span about half of the person's life?--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
In my mind early life usually goes up to college graduation, then there's usually a "Career"-type section, followed by Later life, which is more of a retirement-to-death period. CorporateM (Talk) 02:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll work on that.--ɱ (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps done. I can't find anything directly about him after 1908 except that he sold his farm and the information about his death.--ɱ (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


### Personal life
"He had three sons" - > "Law had three sons" since it's the beginning of a new section, suggest using his name
Good advice, done.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"152 Second Avenue in" Is using a precise address something readers would be interested in?
I don't see why not when it comes to level of detail. It's factual and well-sourced to that 1914 biography too.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there is a better way to format the list of children, in a table or bulleted list
I haven't seen it that way for bios on Wikipedia, but I don't read wiki bios as much as many other articles. I don't know how to go about doing this, but it's a good suggestion. Do you have any ideas?--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure the best way to do it; I just felt the block of names/dates was painful on the eyes. You could use a WikiTable or you could make it more concise by saying "had X children born on A, B, C, D, E respectively CorporateM (Talk) 02:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I prefer your second suggestion, I'll try it and see how it looks.--ɱ (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a feeling now it's only worse, but take a look and see.--ɱ (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I looked up some FA BLPs. They do usually list their children by name and birthdate, but most of them did not have so many. I think a wikitable might be the best way to go, but it is up to you. CorporateM (Talk) 21:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, with a lot of living people, their children might have articles, while only one of Law's children does, and the rest likely never will, meaning this article is the best place to put their birthdates. If the children had articles, the birthdates would just be a redundancy. I'm hesistant to make a table not only because it's not traditional for children on wiki biographies, but also because there are enough images and maps on this article already, almost too many, so it's not worth it to add more, especially when it could be stated just the same in prose form. --ɱ (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yah, that's true. You could also do bullets, but that would be kind of ugly as well. Or with parentheses like "Walter W. Law, Jr. (born <<DATE>>)" Most BLPs just list them more in the manner it was done originally but they typically don't have so many children. I think any way you want to do it is fine. The original way may even be best if there is no better alternative. CorporateM (Talk) 21:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I'll change it back.--ɱ (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Some of the material about how his friend described him sounds a bit fluffy
I copied it over from Carnegie's writing, so it's not like there was any middle man to say Carnegie thought any better of him than he actually did. I think that because it's more personal than most of the information here means that readers will get a better understanding of his personality and how others (or at least Carnegie) thought of him.--ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"Carnegie wrote that Law constantly added to his list of friends and acquaintances and had an attractive personality.[5]" Egh. CorporateM (Talk) 03:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm?--ɱ (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


### Misc
"Within a few years, it became America's foremost luxury resort hotel" Seems promotional. Maybe we can just say it was popular? CorporateM (Talk) 14:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I had removed it at the Briarcliff Lodge article and forgot to do the same here.--ɱ (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"Law largely developed his property as a business corporation until 1907...  developing his properties for Briarcliff Manor instead" I'm not sure what is meant by this. CorporateM (Talk) 14:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
In 1907 when he moved the farms away from the area, he switched the use of that land from farmland and began selling or donating parts of it for houses, churches, schools, etc.--ɱ (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"Walter Law was a friend of Andrew Carnegie, who described Law as always having an interest in reading and recording appealing writing for personal use." -> "He had an interest in reading and writing." CorporateM (Talk) 14:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, not quite, because the Carnegie source describes that when Law found clever or intriguing wording, phrases, or snippets from books, speeches, and other literature, he would write them down for potential further use.--ɱ (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"He had an interest in reading and writing. When he found a phrase to be clever or intriguing, he would document it for future use."? My main thing is "recording appealing writing for personal use" is a little confusing. The way you described it just there was more clear. Maybe it is because "appealing" is an awkward term to use in this case. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree; done.--ɱ (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"Carnegie wrote that Law constantly added to his list of friends and acquaintances and had an attractive personality.[5]" -> "Carnegie wrote that he made many friends and was generally well-liked." CorporateM (Talk) 14:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
That's just a slightly-less-enthusiastic way of saying the same thing, but it doesn't make it less POV. But because it says "Carnegie wrote that...", it establishes that it's pov, i.e. from Carnegie's point of view.--ɱ (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Mhmm, less enthusiastic I think would be better. Keeping the attribution as you suggest would be even better. Saying that he "added to his list of friends" I think is intended metaphorically and an "attractive personality" is more subjective than "was well-liked". CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this review! I'm also the nominator for another GA in the midst of a review, so I may be delayed in response, but I'll try to be as responsive as possible.--ɱ (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as none of the remaining nit-picky items would prevent the article from meeting the GA criteria, I have passed it. Congratulations! CorporateM (Talk) 21:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks so much. I made more changes based on your suggestions. I have five other GANs, would you consider helping me with another? My shortest current GAN is Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion) Thanks again.--ɱ (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I am most experienced with org pages and secondarily with BLPs, but I have no experience with locations. If you ever need a reviewer for a page about a company or non-profit though, feel free to reach out to me. CorporateM (Talk) 23:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I'm in the midst of writing a corporate article or two.--ɱ (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone finds out his true wealth at some time in his life, that would be great. It's easy to assume that in his later life, he had more money than he knew what to do with. According to this source, the New York Times called him an "American millionaire", and according to this source, he was a multi-millionaire. Of course, with inflation, he likely could've even been a billionaire.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)