Talk:William D. Hoard

This review is transcluded from Talk:William D. Hoard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lightburst (talk · contribs) 17:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am happy to review the article. Lightburst (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lightburst: thanks for the great review. I've taken care of most of these items, there are couple of bigger tweaks or just weirdness with the sources that I left a couple comments back on. Let me know what you thinK! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done The article is just over 13,000 characters so MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that we only need one or two paragraphs. I think the four paragraphs that you have used here are needed to summarize so I do not suggest a reduction. With the exception of the items listed below, the lead is a great summary of the information found in the article. It is written well and it is understandable by a broad audience. Lightburst (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is best to have references in the body and not the lead per WP:LEADCITE - since the quote "father of modern dairying" is already cited in the body, the lead citation for this item is redundant. I suggest erasing citation one from the lead.

 Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The introduction of his magazine appears in the lead but it is not found in the body. All information which has been introduced in the lead should be found cited in the body. Under the publishing section I find Hoard founded Hoard's Dairyman in 1885 as a folio supplement to the Union so it should be made clear that this was the magazine in order to square with the lead.

 Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• German and Scandinavian immigrants appears in the fourth paragraph of the lead, but I do not see Scandinavian anywhere else in the article. It should be added to the body so that the lead is correct.

 Done You know, I'm looking at this in the sourcing and I'm wondering if it doesn't make more sense just to cut that part of the sentence. It's not incorrect, exactly, but I think it's more correct not to specify ethnicity in this case. Any non-English speaking immigrants would have been affected by the law, so specifying here makes less sense. I did add a sentence in the Bennett Law section about Scandinavian opposition; it was opposed by those communities for different reasons.

Scandinavian immigrants in the state supported the repeal of the law based on its clause requiring students be taught in their district of residence; Scandinavian communities had fewer parochial schools than their German counterparts and were convinced by opponents of the law that it would prevent their children attending their parochial schools.^[1]: 23

Let me know what you think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Infobox image is free
•  Done Image of building is allowed under FOP
•  Done The image of the bronze sculpture of Hoard is free File:William Dempster Hoard Sculpture - panoramio.jpg. The United States does not have Freedom of Panorama for sculptures but the artist Gutzon Borglum died March 6, 1941 (more than 70 years ago). I believe after research that it was made in 1922. So the subject and artist deaths are within our guidelines and I have added a tag to the image {{PD-US-expired}} on commons. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done The prose is easy to read and the reading level is appropriate.
• Citation 3 is found twice in this section, and both items are found at page 45 but I think your citation says 44. Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ah, I think this is a weird artifact of the journal being a scan. On the printed page it's actually 43, but the digital page counter says 45. I was wrong on both counts, must have been a typo in my notes. I have updated it to page 43 to reflect the printed page number. Let me know what you think. Notably, the page number is not actually on the page from what I can tell, but it's preceded by 42 and succeeded by 44 in the scan, so I don't know what else it could be. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done The rest of the citations in the section check out. AGF on sources which I cannot access. Lightburst (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you incorporate the single first sentence into a paragraph? Lightburst (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Looking at it again, I think it fits better in the previous section, that way the newspaper section is fully about the newspaper business. I moved that sentence up. Let me know what you think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence: The Dairyman was initially financially supported by its parent newspaper but by 1889, it had become a separate publication that focused primarily on dairy farming. - wondering if this is a correct interpretation, as the source claims the Dairyman was a supplement to the weekly Jefferson County Union and then became "an independent sheet" in 1889. Lightburst (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I agree, the phrasing of the sources is a little confusing. The Whyte source may be unnecessary here, as the Schlebecker (p. 57) is more clear: "During the early years, the Dairyman was probably supported, at least in part, by the Jefferson County Union. From 1889 on, however, the paper was apparently clear of financial trouble. It subsequently became the leading dairy farm paper in the country."

 Done Though of course reading that quote again, maybe the text needs a qualifier. It was published by the Union printing presses and Hoard, the Union would necessarily have had to support its publication early on, but maybe definitively saying that is edging on OR. Let me know what you think! It's a tricky topic. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done The other citations check out. Lightburst (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done The section is appropriately detailed with correct punctuation and readability. The citations check out. His ascension in politics is chronologically written. Great work on the research for this section. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please call out who named him: He was named Wisconsin's "Most Distinguished Citizen" in 1915.

 Done Note that I updated the source as well here, as the Blue Book had more specifics on the award. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation 3p48 University of Wisconsin's Board of Regents is found on page 50. Lightburst (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think this is another weird artifact of the number on the printed page being different than the number in the digital file. The page number in the lower left corner is 48. Let me know if that explanation works for you! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean here. Lightburst (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• According to MOS:ORDER the Notes section needs to be below the See Also section. Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done great catch! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Comments are above the chart

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The article follows the MOS:ORDER guideline with the exception of items listed above. Lightburst (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Comments are above the chart

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Comments are above the chart

   C. It contains no original research:

   Comments are above the chart

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Comments are above the chart

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Comments are above the chart

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Comments are above the chart

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Comments are above the chart

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Since March of 2023 the only editor to edit this article is the nominator. It is stable. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)stable[reply]

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   See above for comments

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See above for comments

7. Overall: Comments are above the chart in notes

   Pass or Fail:

   Well done and keep on writing articles. I enjoyed reviewing the article@!