Wikipedia

Talk:William Phillips Hall/GA1

< Talk:William Phillips Hall
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Vocem Virtutis in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago35 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis (talk · contribs) 00:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I suppose it could be fun to grab the father-son duo. Thanks for nominating the article, and I'll get the reviews out as soon as I get the chance! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good Article Criteria

edit
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    As a general rule, I'll fix any minor grammar mistakes as I review; if more work is required, I'll mention it below!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    Expect this to be one of the last things I check; it's the biggest task, so I want to ensure everything else is in place first!
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    This is one of the first criteria I'll try and determine so that the editors/nominators have plenty of time to perfect the article's scope!
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    In my mind, this is maybe the most important criterion; it'll also be one of the first I check!
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    Usually, this isn't an issue; assume that this criteria is met unless I mention otherwise somewhere below!
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    This is an important one, but one I tend to find pretty tedious. I'll mention pretty quickly if the article needs more images; the actual investigation of those images is something I'll save for the end of review!
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

First Thoughts

edit

Ok, I'll just hit the high points here! I do see quite a few grammar issues; I'll fix smaller ones as I go along, larger ones I may refer to you below. Scope, at a glance, looks okay, though I'll need to do my own research to be sure of that. Neutral POV has a few issues. Illustrations at a glance look okay, though I'll have to check their copyright statuses and all of that super fun stuff. Overall, I think we can work with this, but it will definitely need some work. I'll go through more in-depth once I get a chance! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Note: I just ran a grammar overhaul where I fixed many smaller issues; I'm certain there are more I missed, but it's a start. I'll list larger mistakes below.

Issues Unresolved

edit

Lead

"He founded the Hall Signal Company, with headquarters in New York City. He invented many railroad signal mechanisms that were considered to be safety devices." The wording here could be improved, I think, for the sake of being concise and clear. Something like "He founded the Hall Signal Company, headquartered in New York City, and invented signal mechanisms to improve railroad safety."


New York City ought to be wikilinked.


Infobox

The image in the infobox has too simple a caption. At the very least, it should read "Hall in 1896".


Information about Hall's parents could be added to the infobox, with his father Thomas Seavey Hall being wikilinked.


I went ahead and added his age at death to the infobox.


Early life

What's here looks good, but if you know of any more relevant information that might be included, it wouldn't hurt. The amount of information currently just barely justifies its own section.


Midlife and business career

"He organized and founded in 1889,[3][4] when he was 25 years old, the Hall Signal Company that manufactured railroad automatic block signals as warning devices that two trains were on the same section of a track." could be clearer if it was restructured. Maybe something like "In 1889, at 25 years old, he founded the Hall Signal Company that manufactured railroad automatic block signals to warn when two trains were on the same section of track.[3][4]".


"Hall became president of the company he founded and had offices in Chicago and London, with the headquarters in New York City." There's no need for the clarification that he became president of the company "he founded"; there is no other company mentioned that the reader might confuse for Hall Signal Company. I also wonder if "was" might be a better verb than "became". In my mind, became suggests that at one point, the company had a president before Hall. I'm not positive if this is the case or not, but assuming that it is not, the verbs should, I think, be swapped.


"Railroad traffic in the city of Chicago during the six months of the 1893 Columbian Exposition (Chicago's World Fair) was 19,500,000 passengers and there were no accidents under the protection of his signal system." It might be good to restructure the sentence and throw in a bit more information here about what specifically Hall did to benefit Chicago's railroad systems leading up to the World's Fair. I'm tempted to nitpick this a bit more, but I'm interested in if there's any other information available first.


Second paragraph looks good to me!


Philanthropic and religious career

"Hall's father was a preacher. His great-great-great parental grandfather John Hall, who was born in England and immigrated to America around 1645 was the earliest deacon of the First Church in Dover, New Hampshire. Reverend William Wirt Phillips, pastor for 40 years of the First Presbyterian Church on Fifth Avenue in New York City was Hall's maternal grandfather.[3] Hall followed in their footsteps and became a lay preacher and religious writer as another career to his normal railroad associated businesses. He devoted much of his time and means to evangelistic and philanthropic work, as well as higher education." I'm going to stick this whole paragraph here at once. I noticed this in Thomas Seavey Hall's article too, where this John Hall keeps getting mentioned when it really isn't necessary. William Phillips Hall may have followed in John Hall's footsteps, but it was without either of their knowledge since they lived two full centuries apart. I would probably simplify this whole paragraph down to something like "Hall's father and maternal grandfather were both preachers.[3] Hall followed in their footsteps and worked as a lay preacher and religious writer in addition to his work in the railroad industry. He devoted much of his time and means to evangelistic and philanthropic work, as well as higher education."


"Hall, a descendant of revolutionary heroes, organized a new evangelistic movement in 1896." Unless I'm missing something about the movement's ties back to the Revolution, I don't think that the bit about Hall's ancestors is necessary.


"There was talk of joining forces with Ballington Booth, but that never came to fruition." might actually do to be expanded just a bit to be clearer. "There was talk of the movement joining forces with Ballington Booth, but this never came to fruition."


"The emblem of the organization was a sliver cross in red, white, and blue and bearing letters A. L. G. A. C." may be better phrased "The emblem of the organization was a sliver cross in red, white, and blue and bearing the organization's initials." I also think this sentence may be supposed to say "silver cross" rather than "sliver cross".


"Hall's army was nonsectarian, and all people were invited to join the organization, however those that did not belong to a church had to attach themselves to some religious organization within two months to become a soldier of the Grand Army of the Cross." The second comma should probably be a semicolon. That, or you could separate this into two separate sentences altogether.


"Hall was very involved with local communities, founding the Twentieth Century Gospel Campaign in 1900 and becoming chairman of its national central committee.[23] He was also then a member of the Lawyers' and Transportation clubs and the New England Society of New York and a member of the advisory committee of the General Communion on Evangelism of the Methodist Church.[9] By 1910, he was a member of the Bible League of North America; vice-president World's Christian Endeavor Union; manager of the American Bible Society, Methodist Episcopal Hospital, Brooklyn; president of the Evangelistic Commission, New York East Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church;[24] member of the Advisory Committee of the Commission on Evangelism, Methodist Episcopal Church.[6] By 1911, he was a trustee of the Rollins College of Winter Park, Florida;[25] trustee of the United Society Christian Endeavor, president of the American Bible Society,[26] and manager of the Methodist Episcopal Hospital of Brooklyn.[9] He was also president of the American Bible League,[27] the American Tract Society,[28] the Biblical Seminary of New York and vice president of the World Christian Endeavor Union.[29] He was also on the executive committee of the Greenwich Library Association for 1921 and 1922.[30]" This paragraph is rough to read, because it's basically a straight list of every organization it seems like the man was ever involved with. I would just grab the three or so most important things and completely rewrite the paragraph, leaving the rest of the information out. As a rough rule, the things with wikilinks are probably the most important organizations listed.


Personal life

"Hall was six feet tall of athlete build and had a handsome face." The grammar is rough, and the second half of the claim is subjective. Maybe make this "Hall was six feet tall with an athletic build."


"The ones that made it to adulthood were Dorothy K. Peddle, Mary P. Hirons, Charlotte H. Stockton, Margaret F. Moore, William Phillips, Charles Parker, Lyman Hollister, Melville Phillips, Theodore Dana, and Thomas Shepard.[9] In 1904, Hall and his wife had eight children.[26]" I would probably scrap all of this, unless there's some particular example of any the children going on to have significant legacies of their own. Obviously, I'm sure his kids were important to him personally, but that doesn't necessarily make them important to his Wiki page.


"He was a follower of the Republican Party.[9]" Is this just saying he was a Republican? If so, the sentence should be simplified, and his political party should be put into the infobox.


"Hall was an intimate friend of the evangelist Dwight Moody[4] and was influenced by him to some extent to became an evangelist himself." 'To some extent' is not necessary to the sentence. Also, become (not became) is the proper verb tense here.


"He earned this label by which thousands knew him." This sentence isn't necessary. It's redundant, and doesn't really add any new information, so I would just recommend deleting it.


"He was known as the "business millionaire evangelist"." Who specifically was he known by this title to?


"He was considered the richest evangelist in the world at the last part of the twentieth century." Looking at the source, I believe this is supposed to say the 19th century. Also, this is another case where double-digit numbers ought to be typed numerically to follow Wikipedia's style policy.


"After retirement, Hall devoted himself to writing Biblical stories and publishing religious material that he authored." To simplify, I'd probably make this "After retirement, Hall devoted himself to writing Biblical stories and publishing his own religious material."


"His wife had already died April 9, 1932.[35]" Again, I don't think this is directly relevant to the article. Even if you'd rather keep it in, it's a strange line to be at the very end of the article.


The wikilink for Putnam Cemetery takes me to a cemetery in Arkansas, not Connecticut.


Final Review

edit

I am passing this good article review on William Phillips Hall. I believe it meets all six criteria necessary to be considered a good article. The article is well-written, stable, and neutral in point of view. The page sufficiently summarizes Hall's life, and sufficient information is given regarding his work in evangelism, the railroad industry, and other philanthropic activities. The sources for the article have been checked wherever possible, and any changes to the article necessary for the sake of verifiability have been made. Finally, all illustrations in the review are relevant and used properly, with appropriate captions. Vocem Virtutis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Phillips_Hall/GA1&oldid=1106464678"