Talk:Eppa Hunton Jr.

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 SL93 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Eppa Hunton Jr. and his son, Eppa Hunton IV, the namesakes of the Hunton Student Center at Virginia Commonwealth University, served a combined 50 years on the Medical College of Virginia's board of visitors? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/110967625/; https://www.newspapers.com/clip/109913407/
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I've also expanded the article on Eppa Hunton Jr. since Eppa Hunton IV received GA status and would like to include it in this hook if possible.

Created by Rockhead126 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC).

• No need for QPQ, only two credits to date. I'd like a bit more hookyness, but this seems ok. Jnr was 5x expanded, whilst IV was GA'd. No copyvio found. Seems good to me Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I debated adding that EHIV was the grandson of two Confederate generals as an ALT, as that's probably a more interesting hook, but I do like the idea of including both him and his father and giving a shoutout to my hometown university. I'll give the community a chance to weigh in. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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:Eppa Hunton Jr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 08:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. --Vacant0 (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

At the time of reviewing this:

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 8.3% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring since the article was created.
• No previous GA reviews.

The rest of the review will be focused on the six GA criteria.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No problems were found in the lede.
  • No problems were found in the rest of the article. Criteria passed.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEAD guideline. It is properly formatted, has two paragraphs, and is not overly wikilinked.
  • Use the {{circa|1915}} template in the infobox caption.
  • Please add alt texts to the three images that are in the body of the article.
  • The article complies with the MOS:WTW and MOS:EMBED guidelines. There is no fiction here, so I am skipping this one.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article. Passes 2a.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable, they are either available via Newspaper.com or IA.
  • Ref 25 and Ref 51 are missing pages.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, Ref 5, Ref 7, Ref 8, Ref 11, Ref 16, Ref 18, Ref 24, Ref 32, Ref 44, Ref 47, Ref 50–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
    • There is now an unsourced paragraph (Special:Diff/1168263498).
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article does address Hunton Jr. well. His childhood, family, career, and late-life all do not go into unnecessary detail.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring or content dispute since the article was created.
• Checking images.
  • All images were taken before 1928, so the works are in the public domain. Licensing is valid.
  • File:Eppa Hunton Jr. Men of Mark.jpg date states circa 1906, however, this article states circa 1900. Please fix this.

Final comments

@Rockhead126: The article itself is solid and there are only a few minor issues that have to be fixed. I will put the article on hold for a week. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Vacant0. Thanks for your help! Excited to finally get this article a GA badge. Some changes I've made/comments:

• MOS: Added Template:Circa to infobox caption. Didn't realize using the template was preferred per MOS. You learn something every day!
• References: Most of the references previously used cite web templates. I've been meaning to replace many of them with cite news, cite book, and cite magazine templates where appropriate. Finally got around to doing it and added in a few missing parameters, including volume and number for newspapers. A citation has been added for the added text you referenced. Thanks for pointing out the missing pages in Refs 25 and 51 (now 26 and 52) – that was a mistake on my part; I've added them.
• Images: The reason for the dating discrepancy with the Men of Mark lithograph is that it was from 1906 but was based on a photographic portrait from c. 1900 – I've updated both the Commons file (which I uploaded) and the caption used in the article accordingly. Alt texts have been added to all of the images.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Thanks again! Rockhead126 (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good now. Promoting it to GA. Vacant0 (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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.