Talk:Russ Bogda

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Johnpacklambert in topic Year born?
Good articleRuss Bogda has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starRuss Bogda is part of the Green Bay Packers presidents series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 13, 2019Good article nomineeListed
April 1, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 20:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply


Hello! Thought I review this one as it's a short biographical article. If you have any comments/questions, feel free to ping here.

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. possible flow issue in the personal life section. not 100% sure. Y
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I think this is covered in the neturality part for words to watch i.e. "relented" and "Even though the Packers saw little success" Y
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.
  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).
  2c. it contains no original research. Citation needed for date of birth and 1925 first year City Stadium was played at Y
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. The national planning statement is word for word in the automobile paragraph. Y
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). off topic sentences in the 2nd paragraph of the green bay packers paragraph.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. neutrality issues in the Green bay Packers paragraphs Y
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall assessment.

Lead

edit

Early life

edit

Automobile division

edit
  • "national planning council of the Chevrolet division of General Motors for two years" word for word match of the Democrat and Chronicle source. Paraphrasing needed.

Green Bay Packers

edit

Paragraph one

edit
  • "—the Packers fifth president—" sounds like a side note and removes the focus from Bogda to Fischer. From what I'm seeing in the Green Bay Press Gazette source, it's not mentioned that Fischer was the 5th president for the Packers either. I recommend removing only the quoted part as the rest of the sentence is supported.
  • "The Packers had little on-field success under Bogda, with 1955 being the only season the team did not have a losing record" - not neutral and shifts the focus from Bogda to the Packers. He was a president of the Packers, but that doesn't mean he influenced their performance during his tenure. I suggest removing this quoted part.
    • Reworded to clarify the lack of success occurred during his tenure. This type of language is supported by the next ref (Ref 4) and is a common way to describe success under a leader (even if they weren't directly nvovled in every single decision or action). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm not sure about it. If Bogda was a GM/Head coach during his tenure, then a losing record would be relevant as they influence the decision making per game. A president i'm not sure whether it's relevant to mention they didn't have a good record while he was president. i don't think the losing record had influence to move to another stadium either. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • The Packers organization is significantly different than any other NFL team currently in existence. Instead of one or two owners, the team has been led by 10 individuals. Each president has had varying levels of control and success through there tenure. This has been written about in multiple articles about other presidents. It is also pulled from Ref 5 for Bogda, so I think it is entirely proper to discuss in this article. It is a brief mention and helps frame the discussion towards the fact that his major contributions were behind the scenes, not so much in building a successful football team, as opposed to Lee Joannes, for example, who was known for, among other things, leading the team during significant on-field success. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • The list of things that happened during Bogda's tenure doesn't suggest to me that he specifically was the one to do it in the 25 Feb 1958 Green Bay Press-Gazette source. It sounds like these events happens while he was president:

Paragraph two

edit
  • Just spotted it today: I don't see 1925 being mentioned as the first year the Packers played at City Stadium in La Crosse Tribune or Milwaukee Journal. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • La Crosse Tribune source doesn't mention City Stadium by name but the adjacent reference does. I suggest moving the reference to the following sentence (Milwaukee Journal ref).
  • "where a better stadium was available" doesn't sound neutral as the Milwaukee Journal ref states the Packers did play a few games in Milwaukee, but doesn't state the Milwaukee stadium's conditions.
  • Also, the ref mentions the recommendation of moving the Packers to "some other city" besides Milwaukee, which to me doesn't mean out of Wisconsin. I suggest rewording "out of state".
  • I don't see the board of directors for the Packers advocating for a referendum, only Bogda, the mayor, and members of the citizens committee.
  • ref #14 doesn't mention Olejniczak as acting president but ref #13 does. I suggest bundling these two citations.
  • Also "finally relented" doesn't sound neutral with the board of directors accepting Bogda's resignation.
  • Mentioning Olejniczak as permanent president, the renaming of the stadium to Lambeau Field and the expansion of the stadium as of 2019 seems off topic to me as this is about Bogda, not about the stadium. All of these events took place after Bogda's death, which turns the focus away from Bogda. I recommend removing all of this part.
    • I disagree. The previous sentence mentions Olejniczak as a temp president. It's only natural to clarify he became the permanent successor, much like referencing the predecessor is relevant. The third sentence, regarding still playing at Lambeau Field is relevant because this is Bogda's primary contribution as president. Considering the age of NFL stadiums and the size of Green Bay, it is shocking that the team still plays in the same stadium. The second sentence provides clarification on why the stadium is called Lambeau Field and not New City Stadium anymore. All that said, I am open to suggestions for trimming or tightening up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I think the sentences steers the focus away from Bogda though. If mentioning that Olejniczcak became permanent successor is needed for continuity, sure keep that part. But the renaming of the stadium and 2019 update steers the attention for Bogda to the stadium. If readers want to learn more about what happened after the new stadium was built, I'd think they'd read the stadium's article and not Bogda's article no? I think the information is relevant, but just not connecting specifically for Bodga. Thoughts? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • I significantly rewrote and reorganized the info in those sentences. Let me know if it satisfies your concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
          • I think the new edits are okay. I'm rereading it multiple times to weigh whether or not the sentence are out of scope. So far, it sounds okay but I'll keep revisiting until I fully decide. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
            • Okay so I thought it over. Having the sentences about the renaming of the stadium is relevant as it links the current stadium to Bogda. Having Olejniczcak's as permanent president fits for continuity. Now, I'm not sure about the 2019 seats. Could you explain the reason for including this part? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
              • It comes back to his main contribution: leading the construction of an iconic stadium that has lasted for 60 years. It helps provide the reader with a brief understanding of the importance of this contribution, since instead of just being torn down and rebuilt (like most NFL stadiums in recent history), it has been more than doubled in size. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
                • @Gonzo fan2007: I see what you mean, but it seems to be disconnected from Bogda. If there was a source that mention the further expansions in connection to Bogda, then I'd support the inclusion of this info. Right now, it doesn't look like there's a clear connection between this statement and Bogda. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
                  • If you agree that "As of 2019, the Packers still play at Lambeau Field" is justifiable for inclusion (which I definitely think it is), than the second part of the sentence just clarifies that the Packers don't still play in a 32,000 seat stadium. Not everything in an article has to be directly connected to the article's subject, so long as it provides a relevant detail that helps the reader better understand the overall story. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
                    • I was more concerned about Criteria 3b in terms of trivia. The mention of expansion is summarized as eight times and 80000+ seats. The individual detail of each expansion is in the Lambeau's field main article, which is good and not sidetracking in Bogda's article. The mention of these details is brief, and not overemphasized as well. I think these bare minimum mention of expansion is okay so I'll tick it.  Y
  • "at least nine times to increase the stadium's capacity to over 81,000 seats" I count eight times expansion i think: 1961, 63, 65, 70, 89 90 95 03. Also I'm not seeing over 81,000 seats as the ibmadison mentions the 2003 expansion made it 73,000 (the 2011-15 expansion doesnt have a count of seats) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "Even though the Packers saw little success on the field during his tenure as president, Bogda was praised for his hard work, support of the team, and success in keeping the Packers in Green Bay." - does not sound neutral for various reasons: 1) The Green Bay Press-Gazette source from 24 Feb 1958 does not state the "little success" for the Packers while Bogda was president 2) the inclusion of the praise after his death sounds biased to me. It's a statement from the board of directors and shouldn't be included as it changes the neutrality of the article. I think this sentence should be removed altogether.

Personal life

edit

Overall

edit

I'll work through the green bay packers part later today and update the review accordingly. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Update: Review is done. Most of the paragraphs are good and only need a bit of adjustments. The green bay packers paragraphs, however, need to be worked on primarily due to off topic statements and neutrality issues. This in turn effects the lead paragraph as well. Alternatively, there is a little bit of word for word in the automobile division paragraph and a citation is needed in the early life paragraph (date of birth). There is also a possible flow issue with the personal life paragraph, but i'm open to discussion on that point. Otherwise, the article is stable, has reliable references, has the main topics covered, and has proper caption/copyright status for the infobox image. Overall, the issues are:Reply

  • grammar: personal life sentences (Possible but not 100% sure.) Y
  • original research: date of birth citation needed as it's not mentioned in the Democrat and Chronicle source Y
  • plagiarism: word for word in the automobile paragraph for one sentence Y
  • off topic / neutrality : issues in the green bay packers paragraphs which in turn effects the lead.  Y

As 3 of the 5 issues are only effected by a few statements and seem to be quick fixes, I'm willing to put this review on hold for a week and checking on the progress. Feel free to ping me if you have questions during this time period. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Grammar check

edit

Year born?

edit

Our main source for when he was born is the obituary which only says he was 46. So based on that and when he died (and the obituary was published) he was either born in 1911 or 1912, which is what it also states in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Johnpacklambert, sorry I thought you added Category:1910 births, not Category:1910s births. My bad! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
It is OK. I have to admit I am not sure why some people pick a specific year when the source gives multiple. 2 years like this case is one think, but I have seen people pick a specific year when 3 possible years were listed, maybe even once when 4 were listed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply