Talk:Hawthorne, Florida

Untitled

No section on the history of Hawthorne? Not a single word on the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawthorne, Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111217024532/http://www.sbac.edu/schoolscenters.htm to http://www.sbac.edu/schoolscenters.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

mini review

A couple of notes as I am reading through

• platted -> plotted? no, it turns out I learned something. The second usage indicated it is just an unfamiliar term to me, and I'm largely ignorant of the relevant terminology. Is a link warranted, or is the term familiar enough to most?

I am linking it because, I suppose, that unless you've owned a house in the US and really looked into how your neighborhood was made, that word is not familiar.

I'm looking forward to slipping it into conversation.

• boll weevil, I looked for a link to the historical event. The article and Boll Weevil Eradication Program give a little context, but so does this article.

Linked to boll weevil infestation section which then has link in next section to what you proposed. The infestation section is imo more relevant to the time frame of the Hawthorne article.

Someone (else) should write up content on the economic and social impact, it's quite a big deal I thought and I recall literary references to the infestation.

• "Not a decade after …" the phrasing adds emphasis, but some might quibble as a matter of style.

A creative writer I am not. LOL. Corrected. Also, that phrasing might confuse English-as-a-second-language readers.

Always a good consideration, ESL, sometimes a nuanced phrase in Australian English is too informal for international English.

• "and better times. Agriculture changed …" expand on 'changes' in first sentence, 'land use was converted to Y because the soil was exhausted/saline/ by X'. And are the 'better times' qualified or quantified in the source, economically or socially?

"Better times" were not clarified in the source (from memory because I had to return the book to the library). Found another source and I remember now why I wrote that. I think I made an assumption that people know the general time frame of WWII. There's no reason anyone should, especially younger people and readers from countries that didn't participate. I took it out because I have no way of quantifying it right now.

Now that I took out "better times", do you think that I still need to expand on changes? The intention was that the changes were in the rest of that paragraph.

It seems fine now, without checking what you did.

• No link for Commission–Manager style of governance?

Do you mean an internal link (because it has an external one). I can't find one which is why I linked outside. The closest one on Wikipedia doesn't one for one match the description at the external link.

Only slightly bothered, and I may be applying old-school rules. Odd that that is not covered here, I would redlink to avoid an ext link inline. Maybe a note if challenged.

• I try to keep links out of quotes, the cracker style might be clarified after the quote.

Keeping it because there's not much to expand on in that section that relates to Hawthorne. Although if I check out that book again I can probably add a section that lists all the different architecture in historic homes in the area. The only reason I linked it is that "cracker" is mistakenly thought of as always being a derogatory term for white Americans. If I do an expansion, I will link the style in the architecture area. Thanks again for all your notes! PopularOutcast^talk2me! 14:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I was aware both usages, and thought there was an easter egg effect: surprise, not what you thought. an unpiped link can't be used in the quote.

Other than that I feel like I have been there, I hope there is something useful above. cygnis insignis 04:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, there is! Thank you for this and I will correct forthwith. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 13:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow, this is really shaping up. Some more comments? cygnis insignis 01:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Humans have been living in the Hawthorne area since prehistoric times …" while 'humans' avoids the traditional 'Man' of History, I prefer 'People' as a term in this context. Anyway, can the term prehistoric be refined, some mention of eras or epochs prior to documented periods? I suppose this is in the linked articles, I didn't look, for those who are interested and there is nothing to do here.

Hey, thanks for the additional input. It is in the links but might as well not make people chase it down. Better? Also, I didn't realize that I shouldn't be using prehistoric to mean prehistoric Americas. I got that word from the main book I used for the history section. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 02:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The copyedit was really good. Miniapolis did an excellent job. I feel like a crap copyeditor now! LOL. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 02:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

PopularOutcast, I can empathise with that, I had the same thing happen to me ;–) cygnis insignis 02:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bo Diddley lived there! Musician … well it not wrong. I would have mentioned that in the lead, the article mentions he helped build his own house when he moved there. cygnis insignis 03:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  Cygnis insignis, a lot of the sources conflict on this. Apparently he lived outside of the city limits of Hawthorne. The reason I would hesitate to add him is that he didn't leave a legacy in the town as far as I could find. I searched a lot to try to find where he lived, where the production studio was, etc. The other towns in Alachua County do show things, like a plaza, or he is buried there, or he created a foundation. Dunno. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 04:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  PopularOutcast, Yeah, it was umm … a test, yeah, I was testing to confirm how conscientious you are, that's what happened :P May be flag it on the article talk, someone might find something from a bio? I also listened to the pronunciation guide in the lead this morning, another string in your bow? cygnis insignis 04:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  Cygnis insignis, My initial contributions to Wikipedia were all recordings. The Spoken Wikipedia project was alive and kicking then. Don't listen to my early recordings ... they are pretty bad. I've recorded a few things lately ... mostly from Wikisource. I got a new mic last month and have only recorded one thing since then and haven't really figured out how best to set up for good sound recording... so much has happened. I've now been sick for like 15 days. Once I am better, I will split my time between the copyediting and recording. I get easily bored so having more than one project is good. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 05:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  PopularOutcast, ping me there if you are puzzled by anything, I know my way around wikisource. I also highly recommend you introduce yourself to this user and maybe mention what you are doing at central discussion. cygnis insignis 05:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  Cygnis insignis, I thought I had replied to you yesterday about this. I did post at central discussion. I did not introduce myself to the user mostly because after looking at the user page, I didn't understand why you wanted me to do that. Could you explain? Thanks! PopularOutcast^talk2me! 10:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  PopularOutcast, because I hold that user in high esteem: civility, caution, experience awareness, admin tools and a polite manner … not sure what else to say. I've never met them, but we have collaborated on several mini-projects and I have come to regard them as a friend. The users who responded were good to do so, even tho' my name was invoked, but if you want another recommendation then Mpaa or beeswaxcandle are also exceptional contributors who respond well to enquiries. cygnis insignis 12:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Cygnis insignis, okay, cool, I will keep all of them in mind when I have a question. I don't think I contribute sufficiently to the project to really bother anyone right now. Thanks! PopularOutcast^talk2me! 12:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  PopularOutcast, not the most welcoming of welcomes I thought. My position is what you are doing is a 'version' and that it can be linked from the title of the work. Even if there is only a complete section of a larger work, no regular library would do it differently; what you are doing is valuable and SOP for alternative formats and accessibility. That said, I haven't felt good about saying anything at all and apologise for bringing it up. Sincerely, cygnis insignis 12:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Cygnis insignis, that's true but I am just doing a lot of it right now. Please don't apologize. You can't control other people. It's text. I will assume kindness behind the words until there's no choice but to take it another way. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 13:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cotton and the boll weavil

I've done a little research on cotton production in Alachua County. I wrote a blog post on the subject Sea Island Cotton. Can't cite the blog, but the sources I list at the end may be of interest. - Donald Albury 17:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Donald Albury, thanks! I'll check it out. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 22:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Donald Albury, was looking at your web page and saw that you have an interest in model railroads. I found in some source that Hawthorne had a model railroad store in the building that was the old union depot. I've only ever seen that source and I think it was a blog, not sure. I could not find anything online and wondered if you knew. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 22:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've heard about it, but that it is a private collection, not a store. I don't know if it is ever open to the public. Sorry, I don't know any more about it. - Donald Albury 23:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Donald Albury, Interesting. Maybe I can call their library and find out if anyone knows them. Thanks so much for the info. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 23:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I heard aboout it from someone at the model rr club. I could ask about it, but I will miss the meeting tomorrow. Maybe I can find out something next week. - Donald Albury 02:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Donald Albury, I mean, I am not sure what I would do with the information. I guess it's just interesting because I came across it while doing research for the article. I remember it was a picture and I just found it again on Florida Memory. pic 1, pic 2. There are a couple of other pictures. I get no good hits when I search for Rail Side House Museum or when I search for Ron Kelly Hawthorne Florida railroad. Since there's no original research, unless Mr. Kelly has a pamphlet that I can scan and upload, I don't know how I would add it to the article. I don't get the feeling that the model railroad is of the city of Hawthorne. Thanks for taking me down this interesting road (track? lol) again. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 03:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Harvard system citations

This is probably one of the few articles I've seen use the Harvard style of references - my brain had to adjust for a little bit on how the inline citations were done. I think using this format is a feat in itself. I would probably stray away from using the Notes inline citation along with this as I believe the population change can simply reference the difference between the 2000 and 2010 Census. (The 5 year rolling average - which shows 2017 estimates on population - will probably show an increase since 2010.) – The Grid (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The Grid, Yes, the Harvard style is a feat to use but I used it to show different pages in the same book. The history section comes mostly from one book and I wanted to make it easy for people to look up. This was the way I found to be able to do that. I used WP:CITEX for help.

Now, I am not sure what you mean in the rest of your comment. Are you asking why I separated the different years even though they all use the fact finder page? Or are you asking why I put a note in to reference the population table? PopularOutcast^talk2me! 15:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@PopularOutcast: The note to reference the population table. I don't think the note is needed and you could probably explicitly state the population decline from the 2000 and 2010 Census. – The Grid (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The Grid, Ah, I see what you mean. Let me think on it for a bit. I think my original reasoning was that we hadn't come to the demographics section yet and it would interrupt the flow. If you can think of a good way to say it that matches the flow, please edit the article. I am up for anyone making improvements to Wikipedia. Thanks for your feedback. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hawthorne, Florida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	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. Issues addressed. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	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).	Pass. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Not really plagiarism, but those quotes mentioned above are awkward and should be reworded/paraphrased. Hopefully these have been addressed. Issues addressed. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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)

Community reassessment

Hawthorne, Florida

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Fails the broadness criteria and has not been substantially edited since the reassessment started. Plenty of good advice here for anyone wishing to move forward with this article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This recently-passed GAN fails to fulfill criteria 3(a) (addressing the main aspects of the topic), as there are large gaps in content that were not mentioned in the review. The history section is top-heavy, with paragraphs given to a certain period (1880–1910), but a similar 30-year span (1980–2010) given a single sentence. Much of the information in the section is not backed up with enough detail or information, such as the "suffering during the Great Depression" (no hardships were mentioned) or the appreciation of the area's "rural lifestyle" (which reads straight out of a realtor's listing). The Geography section only has a single sentence for a neighboring border and another with the original, bot-generated area statistic; no mention is made of the area's topography, the town's layout and neighborhoods, or any nearby natural features. The Demographics section includes unnecessary table entries for Florida and U.S. statistics; the government section lacks information on the day-to-day administration of city affairs; and there is no Economy section, which is fundamental to a city entry. Having experience with writing town articles myself (for similar settlements in the sub-2,500 range), it's entirely possible to wring out enough information to fill these sections with more thorough research. SounderBruce 00:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reassessment. Would you be able to help me get access to the sources that you mention? I have not been able to find additional information. The information in the article is what I could find; I didn't leave gaps on purpose. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 01:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest looking into getting a TWL subscription to Newspapers.com or another source like NewsBank (usually available through a public library). They are extremely helpful in getting newspaper coverage that is the backbone of a lot of good research for casual city articles. SounderBruce 03:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

SounderBruce, hi! I was the reviewer who passed this article. I'm still relatively new to this, so I understand if you have concerns - I'm here to learn!

What are some examples of town articles for "similar settlements in the sub-2,500 range" that would be good to look at? I did note the sparsity of the Geography section in my review but I can understand why it would be difficult to fill out an article for such a small town. Any tips you have would be great.

As to recent (1980-2010) history, what kind of content would be appropriate for an article like this without falling prey to recentism? I'd like to be good at this - let me know how I can improve my future reviews. Thanks.

Ganesha811 (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I just had Darrington, Washington pass at GA (and I am prepping it for FAC), so it might be good to look at it. It is fine to describe a bit of the surrounding area, especially since this town doesn't directly border another jurisdiction, and features like the nearby lakes are an easy ask for this kind of section. Just a quick browse through a major regional newspaper's archives for hits on Hawthorne is good enough to pick out events that might be notable enough to escape recentism, as they would be significant enough to be noticed. SounderBruce 03:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)