Talk:Samuel Wilber Hager

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samuel Wilber Hager/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for reviewing my article. This is my first time dealing with a good article nominee. If I can improve anything please tell me. FatCat96 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I believe I have fixed the issues. If any more are found I will fix them as quickly as possible. FatCat96 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those. Please review the sources and double-check for any further copyvios. When I re-check at the end of the review, if any are found, it would probably be cause to fail the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I have double-checked for any copyvios. I have added detail to the Burckel source. The ky.gov work was produced in 1992 for the bicentennial of the Kentucky Auditor. I wasn't able to find any information on who its author is. FatCat96 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@FatCat96: my review is complete - just a few things to fix/expand if possible, and then we should be all set! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ganesha811. I was unable to find any information on what Hager did while he was serving in the state government. FatCat96 (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if the information isn't there in sources, what can we do? Thanks for looking again. This article is now at the GA standard - congrats on your first good article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The first paragraph of the body has good citations, but they are all at the end of the paragraph. Please cite the paragraph every sentence or two with the relevant sources - it's fine if a source is re-used multiple times in the same paragraph. What is the PPA? As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made minor prose edits myself to save us both time. If there are any changes you object to, just let me know. Pass, issues resolved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. 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).	What is "Klotter"? It's fine to have some books as general sources and then to have specific citations to specific page numbers, but I would then separate out those books into a preceding 'Sources' section, followed by a 'Citations' section with the specific cites. The ky.gov work - do we have any more context for its production such as a date or author? It looks, from the URL, like it may have been produced for the bicentennial (so presumably 1976)? Cites #2 and 3 (Connnelly et al) appear to be identical and should be combined. Do we have a publisher/date/ISBN etc for "A New History of Kentucky"? Did Kleber, Harrison, or both write "The Kentucky Encyclopedia"? Burckel is a mystery source that needs further detail as well. What are your thoughts on the question about the ky.gov work above? —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Issues addressed (though any further information on the bicentennial source would be welcome), pass on this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A clear copyvio on the "Of this union" sentence about his children from KY.gov source, and several other phrases are uncomfortably close ("County Judge"). Please fix and rephrase these ASAP. There is also some very close phrasing/copyvio from Connelly et al ("largely directed" campaign) and a couple other phrases. These also need to be fixed ASAP. Merely moving a couple of words (such as a date) around is not enough to avoid copyright issues. As this is your first nomination, I'm willing to give you a little leeway and time to fix these issues, but be aware that copyvio issues usually result in a quickfail and the end of a GA review. The above has been addressed; will re-check at the conclusion of the review. A second check reveals no remaining issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A few of the sources make mention of the temperance issue in the 1907 campaign. I think it would be good to add a sentence or three on that in the appropriate subsection. Do we have any detail at all available on his roles in government before the gubernatorial campaign? I don't think this could pass FA with the concerns above, but given the paucity and brevity of reliable sources, I feel comfortable that it's at the GA standard.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	New article, no issues of stability or unresolved issues on talk.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	It would be nice to have more information about the photograph, such as an exact year, but it was clearly published in 1902 at the latest, so is PD. The book's introduction (page 7) suggests that of 900+ photographs, 800 of them were prepared specifically for the book by Heybach-Busch Co from new photographs, but I can't see a way of telling whether Hager's is among them. Subjectively, he looks about the right age for it to be a 1902 portrait, but we can't rely on that.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.