Talk:Harold A. Lafount/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 15:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'm just working my way through the article, starting at the Early life and education, marriage and family and finishing with the Lead.

Early life and education, marriage and family -

The text that is given is referenced, so I'm happy with that aspect, but its appears to be slightly inconsistent to what is given later. It states here "He came with Mormon missionaries to the United States in 1893[3][5] and they settled in Utah." which seems to suggest he came, when aged 13, but in the Early career section it states "Lafount first worked as an assistant in his father's hardware store in Logan, Utah,[3][5]". So how did his father get to own a store in Utah, when last mentioned he was in Aston, so did the family travel together and does the and they settled in Utah refer to the family or the missionaries?

Clarified to say that the family moved. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early career -

More clarification is needed here:

The first paragraph has him working in his father's hardware store in Logan, Utah,.... for twelve years starting in 1903. The second paragraph has him: Beginning in 1909, Lafount held the position of general manager at the newly-founded Pacific Land & Water Company of Salt Lake City, which acquired and developed land for agricultural and mining purposes.[14] The company also had offices in Logan, Utah; on one trip there, .... (which suggest that he might have been living in Salt Lake city).
Now, he could be doing two jobs at the same time, but ones in Logan and the other is in Salt Lake City and Logan, so where does he live?
The first sentence of the third paragraph states that he lived in Salt Lake City, but that could be linked to the second sentence which specially refers to 1919-1924, so was he also there from 1903-1915?

I've clarified that he was still living in Logan as of 1909. I've gone back over the sources, and it's clear from census reports that they move from Logan to Salt Lake City sometime between 1910 and 1920, but I haven't found anything that narrows that range. So I've just added text that they moved during that decade. The two places are only 80 miles apart, so he certainly could have been living in one and occasionally working in the other, in either direction.

Federal Radio Commission -

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section could do with a "clean up". It starts logically with his appointment in 1927, but after that it jumps around. 1928 material is discussed, then it goes back to the the early months of his appointment (presumably 1927?); 1932 material is discussed sandwiched between 1931 material.

While the overall organization of the article is chronological, and while the FRC section is generally chronological, I've sometimes organized material within the section to be a little more thematic. Thus, for example, one paragraph deals with the geographical aspect of his slot, and includes material from both 1927-28 and 1930. The 1930 reference is a little "ahead" of the pure chronology at that point, but it makes sense to describe the geographical aspect together, and it makes sense to include it early in the section since it was one of the first things he tackled. The paragraph dealing with the impact of television I've put near the end of the section, since obviously that technology would dominate broadcasting in years to come, even if that means a 1931 mention follows an earlier 1932 mention about a different matter. In other words, if I were to sort the entire section purely by date, we would end up with a confusing jumble of material with no flow, no coherency or cohesiveness, no thematic development.

The first paragraph states: "The United States Senate confirmed Lafount by voice vote on March 30, 1928.[19]". Well, yes but the reference states that he was one of four approved members (three of which by voice vote), this aught to be made clearer.

Now clarified, and I've expanded on some aspects of the commission around this time to better describe the conditions he started in. And I've clarified that he started work as soon as he got there, which will help the temporal confusion you felt regarding his Senate approval in the previous point.

Subsequent radio industry career -

This section could also do with a "clean up". Its entitled "Subsequent radio industry career", but the second paragraph is about the death of his first wife, his re-marriage and where he lived; and the final paragraph is about his death and his survivors. These two paragraphs are clearly nothing to do with his "Subsequent radio industry career".

My approach on biographies is to describe the person's life chronologically and not to separate out "personal" or "family" life separately (because things that happen in one sphere of a person's life often affect what happens next in another sphere). But I usually make sure that the section headings reflect that, and in this case I didn't, so I've added "second marriage" to the section title.

As the daughter Lenora is first mentioned in the last paragraph and she again becomes the topic of the first paragraph of the following section Family legacy there is a good case for moving that four paragraph into Family legacy.

I have done this, retitling the section "Death and family legacy".

Family legacy -

Looks OK.

WP:Lead -

Looks OK.

At this stage I'm putting the review On Hold. The article needs a bit of clear up and some points to be clarified. Once these have been done, I'd expect the article to make GA. Pyrotec (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review. I will begin addressing your comments soon. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now responded to your comments. Let me know if anything is outstanding. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine now. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting article about a Brummie who travelled far and left an American family legacy.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

In the light of the recent minor changes/improvements to this nomination, I'm pleased to be able to award it GA status. Congratulations on a fine article. 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and the kind words. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]