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

Nominator: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 22:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Zzz plant (talk · contribs) 01:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonzo fan2007, thanks for your work on this article! I will review it; should have some preliminary comments posted shortly. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: thanks for your responses, it looks like everything GA-relevant has been addressed. I'll pass this shortly. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• article is generally well-written and clear. I will organize some prose/MoS suggestions by subsection below. Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the short description is on the long side, I would suggest trimming it if possible Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really concern myself with short descriptions, but I shortened it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• the opening sentence does read a tad awkwardly just because park is repeated 3x, I wonder if the aside "(historically written as Hagemeister park)" could be cut without much loss to the reader; a different spelling or name is one thing, but I would pretty much expect any park like this to have some inconsistency in whether people capitalize park or not - same thing for churches and train stations Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the early 20th century it hosted carnivals, fairs, vehicle racing, and multiple sports, including baseball and football." - 1) comma after "In the early 20th century." 2) "hosted...multiple sports" sounds odd to me - usually sports (events/matches/practices) are hosted. I would split this off into another sentence as it's already a pretty long list with two "ands." something like "The park also served as a venue for multiple sports, including baseball and football." Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "When the Packers were formed in 1919, they used the park to host their games, although at the time there were no facilities, seating, and attendance was free." suggest rephrasing to "When the Packers were formed in 1919, they used the park to host their games. At the time, there were no formal facilities or seating, and attendance was free." Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• " Fans would line the field, often engaging players directly, while others would park and sit on their car for a better view." - 1) should be "their cars" 2) most of this is stated in the body, but "often engaging players directly" should be more explicitly mentioned if said in the lede Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "demolished in 1923" is mentioned in the infobox but I'm not sure that firm characterization is reflected in the article body, which just mentions that year as when construction on the high school started Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some type of a baseball stadium existed..." - I would remove the article and just say "Some type of baseball stadium existed..." Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "In at least 1906, the park had a half-mile race track and in 1914 it hosted a free carinal." - 1) "in at least" sounds strange to me, maybe "By 1906" 2) typo for carnival Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "At various times during the early 20th century, the park had a small lake, the first indoor roller rink in the city, and various buildings to support fairs were built and torn down." recommend rephrasing to something like "During the early 20th century, the park at times featured a small lake and the city’s first indoor roller rink, while buildings to support fairs were constructed and later removed." to remove repetition of "various" (within sentence and with the preceding one) Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "Adjacent to the park was a popular club house that included a ballroom, dining room, and a bowling alley." - this sounds a little off because it mixes nouns w/ articles and one without. would suggest "...that included a ballroom, dining room, and bowling alley." I also usually see clubhouse written as one word Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the first several sentences detailing Packers history would benefit from an independent secondary source to supplement the Packers' own website Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1920, a fence was built around the playing field so that the Packers could charge for admission." re: source review, suggest "A fence was built around the playing field, allowing the Packers to charge admission." This addresses the effect of the change rather than the intention, which doesn't seem to be stated directly in the source. Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• the section beginning with "At the end of the season, per the lease agreement with Hagemeister Realty Company, the fence was taken down..." was a bit confusing on first read because it appears to describe two separate instances involving the same lumber without clearly separating the timeline. it might help to explicitly distinguish the end-of-season dismantling from the 1921 reuse, with clearer temporal markers. would suggest something like "At the end of the season, the fence was dismantled in accordance with the lease agreement with the Hagemeister Realty Company, and the lumber was returned to the Indian Packing Company. Indian Packing, the Packers’ original sponsor, had provided the lumber on the condition that it be returned at the end of the season. In 1921, Green Bay was given a baseball franchise in a local amateur league, which required the team to have a fenced field and a grandstand. By that time, Indian Packing had been acquired by the Acme Packing Company, which granted permission for the previously used lumber to be reused. Using this material, a 1,100-seat grandstand was constructed."
• "When the 1921 NFL season started, seating capacity was expanded to 3,600, with the seating located on each side of the field." I don't think the last clause adds a whole lot; the type of seating added (bleachers and grandstand) seems more interesting. would also suggest specifying that the Packers were admitted to the NFL at this time. Christl stops short of stating direct causality, but I think you could get some narrative mileage out of it while staying true to source. Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• level 1 header for /References/, right now the level 2 //Citations// and //Sources// are technically under the level 1 /See also/ Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• consistent, clean ref formatting. publication/website names are wikilinked so a reader can easily click to learn more about the source. Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• optional suggestion: add archive links to prevent link rot Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've run the bot a few times and its archived what it could. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• article does rely heavily on Packers-affiliated sourcing as well as works by their official historian, who appears to be an established subject matter expert. however, this is supplemented heavily by reliable secondary reporting in local newspapers. PackersHoFandTours.com is a-ok for supporting non-controversial info about the Packers heritage trail. I have one area where I think adding a non-Packers affiliated source would be beneficial noted in prose review, but overall no concerns about source reliability. Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in-line ref #s as of this revision

• [1]: "The history of Hagemeister Park dates back to at least 1896, when a baseball field was dedicated at what was then called Washington Park." ? source discusses this idea in passing, largely in the context of summarizing other books/articles, but it doesn’t clearly establish or cite this detail directly. since this is a specific historical claim, it would be good to see it supported by a more explicit secondary source (like a newspaper clipping), or otherwise rephrased to qualify the claim. Zzz plant (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source says I've read books and articles that make it sound like Hagemeister Park barely changed in appearance from 1896 when the first baseball park was dedicated in what was then named Washington Park until the last sporting event, a Wisconsin State League baseball game, was played there on May 12, 1923. This is Cliff Christl, the Packers team historian, who has written multiple books on the topic of Packers history. I'm not sure I understand the problem here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My concern isn’t about Christl's credibility - he definitely seems reliable - but about verifiability of this specific claim in the article. Right now, the sentence reads as a definitive statement ("dates back to at least 1896"), but in the source it feels like he is generally alluding to other sources rather than explicitly stating that the first baseball field was dedicated by that year. Zzz plant (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see anywhere that says this type of sourcing is improper. WP:RS and WP:TERTIARY seem relevant. I can search for a more explicit source, but we are talking about a small park in the late 1800s, so no guarantees. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I didn’t say the source was improper or unreliable. My concern is strictly about how definitively the year is stated in the article vs. in the source. If another source can't be found, the claim could be qualified or attributed. Zzz plant (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I am still not understanding your issue.

      The source says: I've read books and articles that make it sound like Hagemeister Park barely changed in appearance from 1896 when the first baseball park was dedicated in what was then named Washington Park until the last sporting event, a Wisconsin State League baseball game, was played there on May 12, 1923.

      I state The history of Hagemeister Park dates back to at least 1896, when a baseball field was dedicated at what was then called Washington Park.

      Chistl is stating that there is ambiguity in how much the park changed, but he definitively states that a baseball field was established in 1896 in Washington Park, which became Hagemeister. I did a quick search of Newspapers.com but only found a bunch of ads for a July 4th celebration at Washington Park in 1896. What change do you propose Zzz plant? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for double checking newspapers.com. My concern is just that the article and source seem to convey different levels of certainty. "I've read books and articles that make it sound like [info about the park]…" - is general, indirect language, and reads as Christl summarizing the impression he gets from other sources rather than making a firm, direct statement like "The park was established in 1896." An easy way to resolve this would be either to: (a) attribute - something like "According to Packers historian Cliff Christl, the history of Hagemeister Park dates back to at least 1896..." (b) qualify - something like "The history of Hagemeister Park appears to date back to at least 1896..." or "The history of Hagemeister Park likely dates back to at least 1896..." Zzz plant (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I added "likely" per your recommendation Zzz plant. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      resolved Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• [6]: "In 1906, the city of Green Bay debated purchasing the property, with a newspaper article noting that Hagemeister Park was owned by Henry F. Hagemeister." Y/N verifies 1906 purchase idea, but I don't see that it a) characterizes the sale as a debate or b) states it was owned by Henry F. Hagemeister. Zzz plant (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "discussed" and added a new source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "discussed" is accurate and new source verifies Henry F. Hagemeister's ownership. resolved Y Zzz plant (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• [8]: "The question of the city purchasing the property for use as a public park was put to the voters that year, but failed with 252 voting in favor and 1,659 voting against." fully verified Y Zzz plant (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• [9]: " It appears that the question was put to the voters for local leaders to understand their views on the purchase, but would not have been binding on the city administration to move forward with the purchase." fully verified Y
• [19]: "The site of the park had been selected for a new Green Bay East High School, with state experts identifying it as the preferred site in 1920." gist is verified, although it kinda seems like the selection was still in motion / hadn't yet been finalized Y
• [25]: "During their first season, Hagemeister Park had to formal facilities, such as seating, and attendance was free. Fans would often line the field or sit on their parked cars to watch the game. In 1920, a fence was built around the playing field so that the Packers could charge for admission." - I assume this is meant to be "no formal facilities"? from my reading, the clipping supports the construction of a fence in 1920, and they have some kind of financial motivation for doing so- but it doesn't seem to be explicitly stated that the fence was built so the Packers could charge for admission (esp. since high school sports are also mentioned to be affected). also, the description of fans lining the field or sitting on parked cars is quite vivid, but I don’t see this behavior described in the cited source. N Zzz plant (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the "so" to "no". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a source. For your benefit the source says When the Packers played on a vacant field in 1919, most fans either paced the sidelines following the ball or pulled their Model Ts close enough to watch from their front seats.. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    new source verifies description of fans' behavior, so that's all set. the only thing I would tweak is with "In 1920, a fence was built around the playing field so that the Packers could charge for admission." - I'd suggest something like "A fence was built around the playing field, allowing the Packers to charge admission." This addresses the effect of the change rather than the intention, which doesn't seem to be stated directly in the source. Zzz plant (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• [27]: "At the end of the season, per the lease agreement with Hagemeister Realty Company, the fence was taken down, with the lumber returned to the Indian Packing Company (which by that time had been acquired by the Acme Packing Company)." mostly verified, although I don't see a mention of Hagemeister Realty Company or Acme Packing Company Zzz plant (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, new source verifies both companies. Resolved Y Zzz plant (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• EW 15.3% largely because of a (properly attributed) quote Zzz plant (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• coverage is broad and appropriate for a defunct early 20th-century venue: addresses pre-Packers history, community use, the Packers era in detail, and the site’s eventual redevelopment. Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• article stays on topic, there are no noticeable detours of excessive detail. Zzz plant (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• constructive edit history for at least the past couple years. no indications of lingering content disputes, either in history or on talk page. Zzz plant (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 PD historical photo, appropriately tagged, and one 1 PD contemporary photo of commemorative plaque. both images are relevant and appropriately licensed Zzz plant (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• optional suggestion: add alt text Zzz plant (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]