# Talk:Otto Frederick Hunziker

Please drop me a line if you don't know how to fix them. Probably international format is more appropriate (MOSNUM has a guideline for the selection). They were displaying wrongly to our readers before autoformatting was removed, too. Tony (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Tony, thanks. It took me a little while to find  MOSNUM.  I note from MOSNUM:

"Dates in article body text should all have the same format";
The full month name should be used (I was using the genealogy convention of three letters);
"The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. * * * The resulting links are normally to lists of historical trivia which have little or nothing to do with the subject of the article. The use of these formatting tools therefore tends to produce overlinked articles." This is further discussed in the "date debate".
So I tried to follow the above for the article body text and used the international format.  If I missed something, please let me know.--Rpclod (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am confused about the changes made on September 5.
1. Other editors previously changed hyphens to en dashes and em dashes.  On September 5, many or all of these were changed back to hyphens.  Why do these keep getting changed back and forth?  While I sincerely appreciate the efforts of all the editors, the previous editing—not the most current—appears to reflect the  MOS:

 Hyphens indicate conjunction (e.g., creating compound words).
 En dashes indicate disjunction (e.g., to or through a range) or separate data within points.
 Em dashes set apart clauses (similar to parantheses).
2. Dates were changed to include links.   MOSNUM states: "The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated. * * * The resulting links are normally to lists of historical trivia which have little or nothing to do with the subject of the article. The use of these formatting tools therefore tends to produce overlinked articles."  (See also "date debate".)  The September 5 changes appear to be inconsistent with this direction.
I tend to focus more on substantive content and do not profess to be a stylist.  Hence, I may not fully understand the nuances or recent changes.--Rpclod (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was contacted about this via email and asked to comment about the recent changes.  You are correct, Rpclod, that the added autoformatted links should be removed because they are now depreciated.  As for the dashes, I think you will see that user:Koavf only changed the formatting, but the correct dashes do appear; page and year ranges still use en dashes and clauses are separated by em dashes, but instead of using "ndash;" or "mdash;", respectively, the article now uses "–" or "—".  Either format is fine, as it has the same result in the article.  I cannot see any incorrect usage of hyphens in the article; it's a small difference, but "–" is not the same as "-".  It may look that way while editing, which is why why some users prefer simply writing out the en dash and em dash codes: it's easier to tell when you've made a mistake. :)  I hope this helps. María (habla conmigo) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello I was also alerted (thanks, by the way): all I did was convert HTML to Unicode using a script. I was not aware that date linking is deprecated (! and ? - I'll have to look into this.) See WP:DASH for more on hyphens/ems/ens/minus signs/etc. Please post on my talk if I'm needed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
María and Justin, thank you.  I saw what seemed to be oscillation between different editors and did not realize that the dash changes were merely to unicode.  To my untrained eyes, I thought dashes were reverting to hyphens.  My sincere thanks for the work that you and other editors do.--Rpclod (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Otto Frederick Hunziker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
It's difficult to discern from a brief reading of the article what makes Hunziker notable. The genealogy is very detailed and perhaps submerges the relevant information. There is WP:PEA in the section on his Professorship "It is difficult to overstate the importance..." Ning ning (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Based on your comment, I minimized much of the family discussion by creating a separate stub for the  father.  Professor Hunziker is notable due to the critical work he performed in the dairy business.  His contributions in that industry and hence to the general public's welfare were significant.--Rpclod (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In "Family and Early Life" it is stated that he might have been influenced by Gerber; this is followed by a short resume of part of Gerber's career, the Gerber method for testing fat and the comment "This was one focal area for O.F. Hunzicker". In "Professorship at Purdue" Hunzicker is described as chairing the Committee on Methods of testing Butterfat (excuse the contraction), which seems to be where Gerber's influence was expressed- but the connection is not made there. It night be better to  move the Gerber section to the part where Hunziker's chairmanship is mentioned, and find some way of getting rid of the "might" and the "one focal area".  Ning ning (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
First paragraph of Professorship at Purdue- I think linking the word Dairy to an external site should be avoided, and the link shown separately. Last line of this section says that the Prof O.F. Hunzicker House thereafter housed the Chi Omega sorority- presumably the University named a building after Hunzicker when he left, but this isn't mentioned.
In Professional Life there is a reference to the U.S. Dept of Agriculture selecting Hunzicker to head the "industry and economics" division- these quotes should be removed and the proper title of the division given (it gives the impression that the division was called something else, but was referred to as the "i & e"). Patent numbers are given without specifying whether these are U.S. patents. I think it's den Haag or the Hague, not den Hague; that needs to be checked.
In Death and posthumous honours, what's 46.9% of 283 ? It's probably better to use a whole number, rather than a percentage here. Also the polling method is a bit unclear- I read it as being that they were asked to list significant contributors; Hunzicker was named on 47% of lists. Otherwise it's a puzzle how someone can get 47% of the vote and come third. Ning ning (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ning-ning, thank you for the detailed comments.  I believe I have now addressed them.  I also moved the Hunziker House reference to External Links.--Rpclod (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


### Good Article
Well written, properly cited, appropriate illustrations with captions and data, no edit wars. I've not put this article in the Good Article list because there doesn't seem to be an appropriate section- one needs to be created. Ning-ning (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


### GA reassessment
While this is a generally good article, it is not quite compliant with the GA criteria yet. I noticed the following issues, which should be addressed pending reassessment of the article's GA status:

The lead should summarise,  rather than simply introduce, the article (per WP:LEAD). It needs considerable expansion, with perhaps a sentence or two for each section of the article body. A good rule-of-thumb is that, were everything but the lead to be deleted, a reader should still come away with a decent (if not very detailed) grasp of what the missing text would have said.
There is no reason to have two closely related sections; Family and early life and Family life. These could be merged.
A few assertions still require specific in-line citations, although for the most part the referencing looks fine. If it would be helpful, I can tag these in the text (I don't like doing this uninvited).
Feel free to get in touch on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, EyeSerenetalk 12:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments below copied from various user talk pages to keep this thread coherent:
EyeSerene, thank you very much for the comments at the article's  talk page.  You indicate on the  GA talk page that you "hate" to reassess the article's GA status.  Although I understand the desire for stability, I am very glad to have the additional review and would prefer to have the article as strong and consistent as possible . . . so I sincerely appreciate your comments.

I have substantially expanded the lead section.  Please let me know if you think the expansion meets the goal of WP:LEAD.
Regarding "Family and early life" and "Family life" sections, I agree that the title similarity is confusing and renamed the first as "Early years" and retained the roughly chronological nature of the biography.  Only after considering your comment did I find the  Biography template which suggest a similar approach.  That is a little different from your suggestion, so please let me know if you don't think this works.
Finally, I added a cite and restructured several existing cites to try to address assertions.  I would gladly welcome any further guidance you could provide on that issue.
Based on your comments on the  GA talk page, should I change the  GA template to read topic="everydaylife" (or is that a task performed by an independent reviewer)?  Does anything on article's discussion page reflect the subcategories "Food and drink" or "Personalities"?
Should I inform the original GA reviewer, Ning ning, about the re-assessment?
Any other comments you might have would be appreciated.--Rpclod (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That was fast work! I'm glad you didn't mind my comments - I thought that since the article has only just passed GA, it would be quicker and easier to sort this out between ourselves rather than unnecessarily list the article at WP:GAR. I've already left the reviewer a note; they've done a good job overall, but it's easy to miss things (we've all done it, though the lead as it was did rather stand out!)
Regarding your edits, I think the lead is fine now. It does its job of summarising the article, and establishes the Professor's claim to notability. The new section headings make more sense too.
We could probably do with explicit citations for the second paragraph of Early years - especially the assertion "Otto Hunziker was likely influenced by Dr. Niklaus Gerber who studied at the University of Zürich and worked for two years at the Swiss-American Milk Company in Little Falls, New York.", as this is speculative and will come over as editor commentary unless it's cited to a source that expresses the same speculation. Also, the final paragraph of Family life is uncited.
Finally, "Children of Otto and Florence include:"... implies that there are more children than are listed. Maybe "were", or something more definite? Lists are strongly discouraged by the WP:MOS too, so perhaps the list of children could be worked into prose?
I hope this helps. I'll list the article on WP:GA when we're done (it's normally the reviewer's job). All the best, EyeSerenetalk 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for those comments.  Of course, I cannot find the influence reference now.  So I re-wrote the paragraph.  I think that it adds context to Hunziker's career, but please let me know what you think.  I have also changed the language regarding Hunziker's children.--Rpclod (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Thank you for the extra work you put in on this; it's much appreciated ;) EyeSerenetalk 11:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Otto Frederick Hunziker. 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/20081015161058/http://archives.library.wisc.edu/oral/guide/set27.htm to http://archives.library.wisc.edu/oral/guide/set27.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)