Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesha811, thank you so much. I have addressed the issues that you brought up and am looking for more feedback in areas that I did not change. I very much appreciate your time on this. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 21:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is awkwardly worded, especially the 2nd and 3rd sentences. Current mayor should be moved from lead to Government - instead two prominent residents might be included (Bo Diddley and the Governor).
Reworded so it sounds a bit less awkward (I hope). Moved mayor to government section. Chose not to include Diddley and Edwards because they made no lasting impression on the city.
Last sentence of first paragraph of "History" is not incorporated well - direct quote from source for no particular reason.
Reword last sentence. I do not understand what you mean about the direct quote. There is no quote there.
Oh! Sorry. I missed that it was the first paragraph. That was put in because the whole idea/thread of Hawthorne is that it is a place that grew around crossroads. They are common words so they don't need to be quoted. Changed it. Not sure if still awkward.
Another awkward quote incorporation - fourth paragraph of 'History' - rework paragraph. Perhaps incorporate with paragraph above, new paragraph split at "In 1881, 36 years after Florida...."
Done.
I'm going to do a copyedit, but not too many other issues. Biggest issue is the lead which could use a quick rewrite.
This did have a copyedit by the Guild of Copyeditors so I expect there not to be a lot of glaring issues. I did see where you made some good changes.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
When was the first subdivision platted - "Town of Hawthorn"?
I do not know exactly. Articles like this suggest that it was 1879 but what my research told me was that the area needed to be platted prior to allowing the right-of-way for the railroad. The first railroad was complete in 1879 so it has to be sometime before. I think I initially had the phosphate time frame and the platting together and then it was separated during copyedit. The book that had the most information on history was not clear on the exact date (but I can check it out of the library again and check it). Anyhoo, I've adjusted. It may be awkward.
PopularOutcast, ok, fair enough - I'll take a look at what you wrote.
Source on "During the 1940s, agriculture declined because the land..."?
Added.
Source on Hawthorne being known for Lima beans in the 1960s?
Those last three sentences are all for for the same page in the Historic Hawthorne book which is cited at the end of the three sentences. Do you want me to add the same citation to each sentence?
PopularOutcast, no that's fine. As long as there's a source.
Issues addressed. Pass.
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).
Would be good to expand the Geography section somewhat - is there any climate data available for Hawthorne?
I cannot find anymore information about geography. There is no climate data for Hawthorne because there is no weather station anywhere near there. The nearest that is historically tracked is Gainesville.
Noted. If there's no reliable info to add, nothing we can do about that. :)
Issues addressed. Pass.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Pass. No issues.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Pass. No issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Stable. No edit wars. Pass.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Images and captions are good overall. The group of photos at the end of the 'History' section have the feeling of being thrown in there just because they exist, not because they are really needed for the article. Perhaps they could be grouped as a gallery at the end of the article, not throw into history.
There are many more images available of historical Hawthorne. There are very few available publicly of the modern era. I selected images that had to do with the history section and they are in order by time. I did not put them inline because of two reasons - the infobox spans most of that section and there are more of them than there is space in the history so it would look odd. Are there any that you find particularly erroneous? I am not sure they would look okay at the end since there are other pictures in the article that correspond with their section.
I still don't love it but I see your point and I think this is more my personal preference talking than anything really GA-relevant. Pass.
7. Overall assessment.
Pass!
This article passes GA review! Congrats to @PopularOutcast: and everyone else who worked on it! Nice job. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
