Talk:Thomas W. Lamont

message: The Wikipedia Article on Thomas W. Lamont was acceptable, but not great. It was missing a lot of detail that the American National Biography written by Stephen Goldfarb had, however, it also provided some details the ANB article did not. The Wikipedia article had only two sources in its bibliography and resulted in lack of detail. There is no information on the authors on either article. The only complaint though on the Wikipedia talk page was that the picture of Lamont might be copyrighted, but that does not affect the credibility of the article. The overall article was very short and was mostly little quips about his career. The ANB article was much more thorough, reliable, and better than the Wikipedia page.
	To start off, the “Early Life” section of the wikipedia article was severely lacking detail. It failed to mention his parents’ names, his financial struggles, and how he overcame learning problems because he was not prepared for school. It also didn’t say how he switched from journalism to finance. The article touched based on the jobs he had, but didn’t go into detail about them. 
	Wikipedia failed to mention that Lamont was Vice President of the First National Bank and skipped right to his career at “J.P. Morgan.”  This section had some detail, but missed a lot of important information. The article didn’t even say how he got that position. It lacked the great detail the ANB went into. It did, however, have subcategories of the different points of his J.P. Morgan career, but I think that instead of making it more organized, it just made it less detailed.
	Ending on a good note, the Wikipedia article had good information on Thomas’s philanthropic donations. It also had a whole section, although fairly short, on his life in his older years. It talked about when and where he died, his children and grandchildren, which the ANB article did not touch upon. Also, the bibliography on the ANB site far surpasses the Wikipedia references like I mentioned in the first paragraph. The Wikipedia article has two book sources, one not even completely about Lamont. The ANB article gave  at least 8 references and where he found them so that the reader can find them too. They were books or articles completely dedicated to Lamont, along with information and reading from Lamont's family. The wikipedia article only had one book that was totally about Lamont and one book that  had a section about Lamont.
Katie Hoer (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: :Image:ThomasWLamont-1929Timemagazine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ThomasWLamont-1929Timemagazine.jpg