Talk:William D. Hoard

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: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)

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

  @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)

Introduction/lead

•  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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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.

References

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

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

Images

•  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)

Early life and education

•  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)

 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)

•  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)

Career

Publishing and advocacy

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

 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)

• 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)

 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)

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

Political career

•  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)

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

Legacy and personal life

• 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)

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

 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)

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

Notes

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

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

Review chart

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)

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

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@!

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

William D. Hoard c. 1890

• ... that the Los Angeles Times called William D. Hoard (pictured) "the father of modern dairying"? Source: and the father of modern dairying.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Fire basket
  • Comment: I reviewed this article for GA and thought to nominate it. We can explore other hooks as well. The image is optional but it is free so I offered it here.

Improved to Good Article status by M4V3R1CK32 (talk). Nominated by Lightburst (talk) at 23:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/William D. Hoard; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Claiming this for review and will get back to you soon. For now, the hook is good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good after a quick look. Article was promoted to GA status on time and a QPQ has been done. Didn't find any close paraphrasing and the hook is cited inline and verified. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments from FAC decline

I'm bringing the comments from the declined FAC effort on Oct. 8 here for easier viewing for interested editors. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:William_D._Hoard.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag

Copyright permissions have been updated; dead link removed. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• File:Privy_Seal_of_Wisconsin.svg: two of the sources are dead

These links have been updated. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, not an image comment, but suggest reviewing citations for consistency before a full source review is done.

Citations have been updated for consistency as of today. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Llewee

• "and itinerant Methodist minister who preached to the Oneida people." - It might be useful to add a link from "preached to" to Missionary.

Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Hoard was educated in a log schoolhouse" - The link is to One-room school, if that is what the source says then it seems to be worthwhile information to include in prose.

Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In 1860, he married Agnes Elizabeth Bragg and moved in with her parents in Lake Mills, Wisconsin." - Do the sources say anything about what he did while living them?

Nothing that I have seen. He enlisted in the Union Army sometime in 1861 so he wasn't there that long. Sourcing talks more about the hop farming when he came back from the war. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "It is considered the first agriculture publication to have a nationwide readership in the United States." - Are their any figures for how many readers the paper had?

In 1924 circulation was 75,000. I have added this to the article. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• "including legislation to ban filled cheese" - Could a brief explanation of this practice be added?

I have added a reference note explaining filled and skimmed cheese. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "the group campaigned for the establishment of the first dairy school in the U.S., which taught students to make butter and cheese." - Could you clarify when this school was founded and what it was called?

I added the year it was founded. There is some conflict on the actual name. Some sources (Apps, The LA Times) refer to it as a dairy school -- lower case. Lampard refers to it as a dairy short course, also lower case. It doesn't seem to have a "proper" name. from what I can tell. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

•   "The group also campaigned for the showing of Wisconsin dairy products in Philadelphia and Chicago," - At agricultural shows?

These were centennial exhibitions. That information comes the Rankin biography, which as Hog Farm pointed out, isn't the strongest source. I've moved this information up a paragraph and changed it to reflect what is stated in a stronger source, the Lampard book. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Hoard was educated in politics as a child." - Is any additional information available about this?

You know, there isn't, and now I'm having a heck of a time finding a decent source for this. I've cut the sentence, it doesn't really do anything for the article. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Hoard served a single, two-year term as governor. His administration created one of the first food inspection agencies in the United States and the passed a controversial compulsory education law that mandated schools to educate their pupils in English." - "the" isn't needed before passed, can you add a citation here?

Done! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "affection for speaking German language in the United States," - I'd suggest changing this to "affection for speaking the German language" and linking "the German language" to German language in the United States.

Agreed, that is much better. Done! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• The personal life section should either be expanded or broken up.

Done! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be much information on his political opinions or personal character. How did a man who seemed to spend the first part of his life drifting around suddenly develop a deep desire to reform the dairy industry?

I'll some digging and tinkering on some of his other poltical; however, the early life section discusses how he was steeped in the dairy industry from a young age. I added another sentence further expanding on that. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I would be curious if you think the updates I have made satisfy the question about his political opinions. There unfortunately isn't really a source that spends much time talking about his beliefs in the abstract. From what I can gather, he was a lifelong Republican, briefly allied himself with Robert M. La Follette, cared a lot about youth education, and wanted to protect the dairy industry from outside forces, particularly manufacturers of margarine and filled cheese. There isn't really much about his politicking beyond that I could find, and it's all just variations on those points, which I think are covered by various sections in the article. Let me know what you think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Hog Farm

I do not believe this article meets WP:FACR #1c, both the "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature;" and "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources".

First, Osman 1985 and Rankin 1925 are published by the publishing company that Hoard founded. Rankin is particular was published not long after Hoard's death. I do not see how two sources this closely related to the article's subject can be considered independent, especially for stronger statements such as "His advocacy for agricultural practices such as single-use herds for dairying, and the use of silage and alfalfa as cattle feed led to those practices becoming commonplace throughout the United States." or "Hoard's use of local correspondents to expand his newspaper's reach was among the first by a county newspaper in the United States".

My notes show Schlebecker also has information on these; hopefully I can pull some direct quotes from that publication when Internet Archive is fully back online. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I've changed up the content related to the advocacy for dairy practices with sourcing to stronger sources and removed the claim for widespread adoption throughout the US per your concerns. The LA Times offers the strongest sourcing for widespread adoption of some elements (alfalfa, most notably) but not all. Schlebecker dances around crediting Hoard with the adoption of single-use herds but isn't quite direct enough for my taste (see p. 63 -- Schlebecker says Hoard reached more farmers with the Dairyman than other publications but doesn't outright say he is responsible for the adoption of single-use herds).

I also started looking again into arguably the strongest claim in the article, that Hoard created the first food inspection agency in the nation, which turned out to be a little stickier than I thought. The Wisconsin Historical Society ("established the nation's first Dairy and Food Commission to defend consumers against dangerous food contamination") and LA Times ("the first state agency in America designed to ensure food purity") both say the Dairy and Food Commission was the first such organization in the nation, but Nesbit (p.32) -- whose book was published by the Historical Society -- explicitly says that it was not the first ("Wisconsin was not a pioneer in this field. Hoard noted that neighboring Iowa and Minnesota had such commissions."). The Historical Society's writing could also be interpreted as establishing the first agency with that name. I feel like deferring to Nesbit and removing the line about being the first is the move here but would be curious for your thoughts. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ivins also declares it the first M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Rankin and Osman as significant sources, I have curtailed their usage and added additional citations supporting their claims where possible. Claims that remain without additional sourcing for verification I consider to be noncontroversial and if we treat Rankin and Osman as WP:PRIMARY sources -- which I believe to be the correct interpretation, these books are not all sunshine and rainbows about Hoard despite being published by his company -- should be acceptable uses. The exception is the sentence regarding meeting a German family who had been conned. I'd love your additional thoughts on that given what I have stated below. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the usage of Rankin and Osman is much more appropriate than it was before. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Then there's the question of how this article can be considered a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" when McIntyre 1966, which is apparently a 300 page book about Mr. Hoard, is not used. I also am concerned that this article is presenting a slanted view of the subject by using non-independent sources.

Just to be clear, McIntyre isn't really a book, it's a master's thesis. Unfortunately, the only copy that seems to exist for possible public use is in Verona, Wis., as part of the UW-Madison library system, and it can only be viewed in person. It has been digitized by Hathi Trust but the digital version is not accessible. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's a master's thesis, then it's almost certainly not going to meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP to the standard required for FA. I'd indicate in the citation template that this is a thesis to make this clearer. Hog Farm _Talk 04:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Done! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

For instance, this article seems to be implying that Hoard's push for English language education law was due to him having an emotional experience with Germans who had been swindled due to a lack of ability to speak English. This is sourced to one of those non-independent sources. But then we have an article, which I turned up using the Wikipedia Library, by Richard Jensen in the Canadian Journal of Social Research title "Comparative Nativism: The United States, Canada, and Australia, 1880s-1910s" which includes the following information: Hoard ridiculed the Germans by claiming that he was the better guardian of their children than their parents or pastors. Hoard counted votes and thought he had a winning coalition by whipping up nativist distrust of Germania as anti-American and then quotes Hoard as saying We must fight alienism and selfish ecclesiasticism ... The parents, the pastors and the church have entered into a conspiracy to darken the understanding of the children, who are denied by cupidity and bigotry the privilege of even the free schools of the state. There isn't a whole lot of information about Hoard in that article, but this sure seems to portray his English-language and political activism in a rather different light than what this article, reliant on non-independent sources portrays this as. This isn't a huge part of the article, but Lee Grady in the Wisconsin Magazine of History article "America's 'Alien Enemies'" also generally indicates that this was an explicitly anti-German platform.

I hear you here, and definitely think there is room for tweaking that topic. That said, I would like to offer a couple responses to your critique.

Extended content

The story about the German family being conned being an inspiration for the Bennett law is first relayed not in Osman, but in Ogilvie. I've added the additional citation. Hoard being influenced by this experience as a census taker and also having paternalistic views about German immigrants are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true. Jensen is also clearly making a point that isn't really backed up by the sources he cites. Jensen pulls the quote from Whyte p.388 but it's not complete. The full quote is We must fight alienism and selfish ecclesiasticism, for unless we do these dangers will rise and confront us in the future. The parents, the pastors and the church have entered into a conspiracy to darken the understanding of the children, who are denied by cupidity and bigotry the privilege of even the free schools of the state. A large proportion were purposely kept in ignorance. I think that changes the meaning a bit, and to me reads as a call for unity and an indictment of rigid adherence to dogma and insular communities more than than prejudice against German people as a whole. Also worth noting that section of Jensen's paper cites three sources, a chapter of a book written by Whyte, the Whyte publication I cited above which appears to be the same article republished by the Wisconsin Historical Society, and Robert LaFollette's 1913 autobiography. The autobiography citation is unrelated to the rest, so that leaves us with Whyte as the source for this content, and Whyte is significantly more neutral in his appraisal of Hoard than Jensen is. Jensen's assessment paints Hoard as prejudicial in a way that the sources don't really support. Whyte considers him inept at being a politician but someone whose efforts were directed at the schools, not the people: Had Hoard been a prudent politician, with a knowledge of human nature such as a high official ought to possess, he might have recalled to mind two incidents in Wisconsin political campaigns which showed the danger of "monkeying" with the buzz-saw of foreign prejudice. (p. 375) As if acting in concert, the Sentinel and Mr. Thayer endorsed the stand taken by Hoard, who afterwards admitted that his message was aimed at sectarian schools. The "little German boy" was being deprived of the language of the country, was a phrase introduced by Hoard at this time, and it played a great part in the controversy for nearly two years.(P. 376-377) There is no reason to doubt Governor Hoard's honesty in the contest which he in a large measure had provoked, but his greenness as a politician has not been denied by his best friends." (P.387) Other scholars discussing the Bennett Law likewise do not contend that Hoard's motivation was inherently prejudicial. Wyman says Hoard's motivation was preserving public schools ; Hunt says Hoard's motivation was the separation of church and state, though not everyone saw it that way; Kellogg likewise says Hoard's focus was on providing quality education. Jensen does not discuss the segmentation of the population of Wisconsin at the time of the Bennett Law, nor what Germania or Germandom was. The other scholars I listed, however, do discuss that in significant depth, and place the question of the Bennett Law solely around the use of German as the primary language in the schools of these communities. They do not attribute malice or prejudice to Hoard in the way Jensen does. I think Jensen represents something of a WP:FRINGE opinion on the topic. I don't think it's accurate to say Grady characterizes the Bennett Law as "explicitly anti-German". Some Germans felt one way, Hoard felt another, and Grady offers both points of view without further editorialization. Indeed, Grady sources that content to Hoard's own writings on the matter. Notes References

All the above said, if the issue is the sentence about Hoard being influenced by a story about immigrants getting conned, I am perfectly fine with cutting that sentence. I think it borders WP:NOTEVERYTHING. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Source-text integrity and other matters:

• "In 1860, he married Agnes Elizabeth Bragg and moved in with her parents in Lake Mills, Wisconsin" - I'm not seeing where p. 43 of Risjord supports that he moved in with his wife's parents, or where it gives his wife's middle name

Good catch! Updated with the correct sources. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "In 1907, Hoard was added to the University of Wisconsin's Board of Regents and helped transport a dairy herd to the campus in Madison and to arrange the construction of the Livestock Pavilion" - this is supported in the source, but I find it odd that the context behind his appointment is not mentioned. The source indicates that this appointment was due to his support of Robert M. La Follette. I've seen several sources mention the association between Hoard and La Follette, who was a major player in Wisconsin Republican politics at the time; it strikes me as odd that La Follette is never mentioned in this article when the sources are frequently mentioning him.

I don't have a good reason for not including that. You make a great point and I will do some further digging. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

So the Risjord source on this is kind of interesting, and there may be some wrong dates in it. I'll keep looking, but Risjord says that Hoard resigned from the Board of Regents because Francis McGovern had stacked it with La Follette cronies. Hoard resigned from the Board in 1910; McGovern didn't get sworn in until January 1911, so McGovern couldn't have stacked the Board while Hoard was on it. I imagine there was probably just a typo there. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

My concern over this has been resolved. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I wasn't able to find anything that I considered especially strong to support Hoard leaving the Board of Regents post-1910 during the McGovern administration. The only one I could find was this synopsis in the UW archives, mentioning his split from the Board happened in 1911 due to "failing health and a disagreement with the president of the University, Charles R. Van Hise, over allocations for the College of Agriculture and of Letters and Science, and over what Hoard considered the partisan choice of regents," but this doesn't strike me overall as a particularly good source. There are a lot of little inconsistencies with the other books and journal articles. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Ignore that, I saw you linked to the same thing below. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why is his 1910 resignation from the university board due to a growing rift with La Follette, which is described on Risjord p. 48, not mentioned in this article at all?

Also a good point! I will add some content generally about his time with the board of regents. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth some more digging on the timing of this; this has 1911 as his exit from the board. Someone with newspapers.com access through the Wikipedia Library may be able to find a period announcment of this. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I was able to dig up an article about Hoard's resignation from 1911. I don't think it is the strongest source, but for the purposes of specifying the year I think it works. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Anderson 1917 source is a self-published autobiography. While Anderson does appear to have had some credentials relating to the Vikings and Scandinavain history, I'm not sure what makes this work as a high-quality source about Hoard's political views

The cited page is actually a reproduction of a letter from Hoard to Anderson. Anderson's credentials aren't really relevant as these are Hoard's own words, and it should be usable per WP:ABOUTSELF given that it his opinion. I have added an explanatory footnote to the article with a quote from the letter to clarify how the source is being used. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "He was assigned to the 4th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment as a fife player and participated in the capture of New Orleans." - source does not mention New Orleans

Added a source for this. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• "Oleomargarine, made by emulsifying lard with milk and water, was often dyed yellow to give it the appearance of butter and was sold as such" - this information is on p. 20 of the source, not page 22 as cited.

Good catch! I had listed page 22 as that is where the quote from Grover Cleveland is in the end note. I see that is confusing, and have modified the references in those sentences and added a refnote to clarify exactly where the information is. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

M4V3R1CK32 note: I removed the ping to FAC here - I have grave concerns with the sourcing here, and I'm not entirely convinced that this article is comprehensive or, in some places, entirely neutral. I don't think this is ready for FAC.

End of FAC comments

Hopefully others find this useful as we try to improve this article and make it worthy of FA status. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As of 10/24/24 (local), all comments from Nikkimaria and LLewee have been addressed. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, Llewee, and Hog Farm: I think I have addressed all of the comments each of you made on the initial submission. I'd be grateful if you all were to revisit this and let me know your thoughts on any questions I posed or if there are things you think I have not sufficiently addressed. Thanks again for taking an initial look. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming all the content comments are dealt with, I'd encourage a thorough review of MOS/formatting issues - eg WP:ALT, WP:CAP, MOS:RANGE, MOS:SOB, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I've always thought MOS:SOB was a shortcut where the intended target was not at all what the shortcut looks to be ... Hog Farm _Talk 03:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)