Talk:Lawrence W. Hager/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cookie dough dingus (talk · contribs) 12:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page features some very notable citations and overall is a very informative article within the basis of notability and although the biography seems a little short, as the saying goes "Size Doesn't Matter" and that saying applies here, I personally believe that this is a good article. It meets the overall criteria for Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Good job to all of the contributors of this page.

Hi. @Cookie dough dingus. I would like you to have a bit more experience before you review a good article. But thanks for your interest. After you gain more experience, you can come back to review the article, after you have thoroughly read the reviewing instructions. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 18:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, I will take your advice to heart and proceed my journey to becoming more experienced as a professional Wikipedian.

Thank you for your response.

Robinhood

J.A. (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie dough dingus I do thank you for getting involved as a new editor and contributing to the best of your ability. I encourage you to continue to be involved with the GA process by reading other reviews and then making another attempt when you've gotten up to speed. In any case, I'll jump in here with my own review. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

MOS:LEAD says the lead section is ... a summary of its most important contents. It thus seems odd that the lead starts with information which is burried in the last section (Death) of the article. I would expect the Career section would go into some detail about being a newspaper publisher and a broadcasting executive. I don't see anything in the article that talks about him being a politician at all (a delegate to the DNC doesn't count).
I don't see anything in the article that mentions the Southern Newspapers Association, or WOMI.
Except for the exceptions noted in MOS:LEADCITE, you would typically not have in-line citations in the lead.

Early life and education

... but declined to join his father... This makes it sound like the thing he was declining was joining his father. How about, "He was offered a scholarship to Harvard Law School which he declined so he could join ..."?
He and Martha had two children, Lawrence W., make that "Lawrence W., Jr."

Career

You repeat the bit here about declining the Harvard scholarship that was stated in the previous section. Find some way to tell the story in a way that makes chronological sense without having to repeat things from one section to another. Both of these sections are short; maybe they could be combined?
You say he joined his father at the Messenter-Inquirer, but you don't say what he did there.
It's not clear why a section titled "Career" is talking about the clubs he belonged to, his philanthropy, or his being a political delegate. Maybe that's just more reason to combine this into one comprehensive unit instead of breaking it up into sections.

Death

See my notes from the lead section. You've buried some of the major things about his career in this short section. In line with what I've said above, perhaps there's no need for discrete sections here. And you should expand on what he did in those positions.

References

politicalgraveyard.com doesn't look like a WP:RS to me: "The Political Graveyard is created and maintained by Lawrence Kestenbaum, who is solely responsible for its structure and content". That says to me WP:UGC and/or lack of the sort of editorial oversight we're normally looking for in a RS.

Other comments

I suspect https://www.owensborotimes.com/obituaries/88367-lawrence-white-hager-iii/ is the subject's grandson, which may or may not deserve a mention in the article (assuming it can be verified).
I suspect https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/611187348 is named after the subject and his wife. Certainly worth tracking down.
I'm going to take a break and come back to this later.
According to WOMI, Hager wasn't just the president, he was the founder and owner/operator. Looks like there was also involvement with WBKR. So there's probably something interesting that could be said about both of those stations.
Here's some more about the (presumptive) son: https://goodfellowsclubofowensboro.org/true-giant-hager-dies-at-93/ It seems like you should incude at least some of the major highlights.
And an oral history interview with the son, which includes a section talking about the father: https://kentuckyoralhistory.org/ark:/16417/xt7hdr2p8b87. Given this is part of a formal oral history project at a university, I'd argue it should rank as a WP:RS.
Even better, same oral history project, interview with the father: https://kentuckyoralhistory.org/ark:/16417/xt7qrf5kd62m
FatCat96 it looks like there's a fair amount of work to do here. I'm going to put this on hold. WP:GAN/I#HOLD suggests seven days, but I think it would be an onerous task to get through this in a week. So, let me give you two weeks to work on the research and copyediting as noted above. Please feel free to ping me if you get stuck or have any questions during that time. I think you've found an interesting and important topic to write about and with some effort could be turned into a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, I will get to work on the article as soon as possible. 🌹FatCat96🌹 Chat with Cat 03:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FatCat96 I see you've made some progress, but please keep in mind that I'd really like to wrap this up by the end of the week. RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like any progress is being made here, so unfortunately I'm going to have to mark this as failed. Please feel free to resubmit after you've worked through my suggested changes. RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.