# Talk:Russ Bogda

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)

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

per the fifth president statement in green bay packers paragraph, there isn't a source in the following paragraphs to support it (see below).
Added a source in the body of the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
per the Lambeau Field and little on-field success comments below, these sentences need to be adjusted.
Reworded per later comment. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Further comments / edits now make this a Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
"the construction of a new stadium helped the organization stay financially competitive and remain in Green Bay, Wisconsin" - doesn't sound neutral as it's shifts the focus to the Packers and not Bogda. The green bay paragraph said Bogda was part of the referendum to have a new stadium built in Green Bay. It doesn't suggest that he specifically led the Packers to become financially successful and stay in Green Bay. He also didn't build the new stadium either.
I disagree. There is no claim that Bogda "built the stadium". It merely states the stadium was built during his tenure. The body of the article expands to his contributions. He led the Packers as president, so not sure why references to the Packers would not be allowed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Per below comments, all seem fine expect the "financially competitive" part as there isn't a part in the following paragraphs that reflect that. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Could you explain which part of the article connects with "financially sucessiveful"? I'm not seeing a specific connection to it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The article says in the "Green Bay Packers" section "and led the team to greater financial success." This statement is supported by Ref #5. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC).
Okay. Thanks for pointing to the specific statement that backs up the lead statement. I think i didn't see a clear connection initially. "Financial success" works as ref #5 mentions "financial champ" Y
Lead says automobile dealer but the Automotive business paragraph says he was president/national planning council member. Was he both an automobile executive and dealer or just executive over the dealers? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Y

Needs a source for Bogda's date of birth. The Democrat and Chronicle source doesn't state it, but confirms the rest of the paragraph.
I honestly cannot find where I got his birth date, other than from findagrave.com. I can cite this site, but not sure it really meets our WP:RS standards. Never had to deal with a bio that lacks a birth date, so any recommendations would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  22:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Find a grave isn't reliable per WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. When I can't find an exact DOB, i use the birth year or approximate year instead (see MOS:APPROXDATE). Infobox would need to be adjusted as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Added {{Circa}} to the lead and infobox. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Y
The early life paragraph needs to be adjusted as well, as the source doesn't say the birth year or birth date. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  02:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Y
You may want to say circa as the infobox/lead mention circa - just to match it all. Or have it "born 1911 or 1912" for example as mentioned in the MOS. Again, it's really minor. If you choose to use the two possible birth years, the infobox/lead would require subsequent updates as well. Reason why i mention it cause 1958-46=1912. But that's only if he was born January/February 1912.  --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Updated, let me know if that addresses your concern. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Y

"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.
I slightly reworded the sentence. In my opinion, the portion of the sentence "national planning council of the Chevrolet division of General Motors" doesn't need to be reworded because it is a the name of an organization. It's like saying someone served on the "finance committee of the City Council". Basic names don't need to be reworded or put in quotes. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  16:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I was more concerned about the same word order matching the whole sentence. As the rest of the sentence has a limited amount of ways to say it per WP:LIMITED, it's good for me. Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


### Paragraph one
"—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.
Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
"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)
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)
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)
I think another source would be needed to link Bogda to lack of a winning tenure as Pro-Football Reference doesn't mention Bogda. If you linked it together like how you did the 2nd green bay paragraph, then that'd work for me as it's making the statement relevant to Bogda. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Added ref 5 to the end of this sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  16:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Y
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:
"large reorganization of the team's administration," - not really, only a new GM was hired
Removed large and clarified the hiring of a GM. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  22:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
"increased the financial security of the organization, and assisted with the introduction of television within football." i don't think this is correct. The board of directors saw the benefits of television when it was introduced in 1953, but my reading of the source suggests that Bogda wasn't the one to introduce TV to the board.
Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  22:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
"led the team to greater financial security" I think I understand what you mean, but could you clarify in this discussion? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I changed the word "security" to "success". The source only says that he led he "presided over a financial champ". Not sure there is much more for me to go off of. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  16:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Y
Clear enough. I wasn't sure what you meant by financial security but it seems worded properly to match the source. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
"securing funding and constructing a new stadium for the team" - the source says the construction of the stadium happened when he was president, not by him. no funds to the stadium are mentioned either in this source.
Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  22:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y


### Paragraph two
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)
Added reference. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  16:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Y
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).
Moved ref per recommendation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
"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.
Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The reference doesn't specifically say the Milwaukee stadium was "larger" either. The Green Bay stadium was small yes, but there isn't mention of whether the Milwaukee stadium was bigger or not. Another source would be needed to support it. Alternatively, I recommend dropping that part only as the rest is supported by the ref. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Saw you swapped it to "already". Works for me as the Packers were playing in Green Bay and Milwaukee at the same time.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
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".
Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
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.
Removed board of directors. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
"prominent civic leaders" might be a bit promotional. Dropping prominent would work i think as Rachals, Atinkson and Canadean were civic leaders. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Removed prominent. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  23:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
ref #14 doesn't mention Olejniczak as acting president but ref #13 does. I suggest bundling these two citations.
Switched refs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
Also "finally relented" doesn't sound neutral with the board of directors accepting Bogda's resignation.
Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Y
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Fixed and added a new reference for seating capacity. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  16:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Y
"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.
Reworded. I think it is neutrally written now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The hard work part Y. the little success part not sure. Perhaps further discussion above with the related sentence would help. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is much more to discuss. It is a stated fact (Ref 5) that the Packers did not have a lot of success on the field during his tenure. The language in the article is, in my opinion, neurally written and not embellished in any way. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It is written neurtally, I'm thinking whether the Packers performance during this time period should be linked to Bodga or kept separate. Update: Alright. As that ref #5 specifically mention that he never became a "winning president", it works. I wasn't sure at first but rereading the Green Bay Press-Gazette article helped. Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the diagnosis of lung cancer and subsequent death statements are a bit disjointed for flow from the way I'm reading it. I'm not 100% sure though.
Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  16:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Y

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:

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 sourceY
plagiarism: word for word in the automobile paragraph for one sentenceY
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)

Thanks for the review MrLinkinPark333. I will continue working through these over the next few days and give you heads-up when I think I have responded to or addressed all of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  16:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, I think I have addressed or commented on all of your comments. Let me know if you have any additional concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Gonzo_fan2007, I've worked through the review, ticked off the ones completed and added comments on ones I'm not sure of (lead i'll leave until the end as the other comments covers it). I also spotted another one I missed earlier and added it to the review (1925 first year of playing in City Stadium - Green Bay Packers 2nd para). Good work so far working through a lot in just a day. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, thanks. I believe I have responded or addressed your remaining comments. Let me know if you have further concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Gonzo_fan2007 I've gone through today's comments and replied. A few queries are left: early life, green bay paragraph one (little success), green bay paragraph two (1925 opening, 81,000 seats). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, think I responded to all your remaining comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  16:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: You did. I added a question in regards to the lead today. I also left a minor comment in regards to the birth year. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think I got the last two comments MrLinkinPark333. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Gonzo_fan2007 I got the comments from today. Left a reply for the financially competitive statement in the lead and the 2019 seats in the 2nd green bay paragraph. I appreciate your daily comments snd polite discussion. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, I have responded to those two comments. Happy to work through this iterative process with you. Thanks for the continued engagement. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: No problem. I added a comment to the financially success statement, and thinking over the 2019 seats. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333, I have responded to both of your comments. I think though that these 2 items we are still discussing are things we may just not agree on. At this point though, I don't believe they hold the article back per the GA Criteria. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: Rechecking the last two, I ticked them both as one of them I didn't see the connection but do now, and the other one I had to reread an explanation of criteria 3b to guide with my decision. I think that's all. I'll reread the article to double check I didn't miss anything. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"His family moved to Green Bay, Wisconsin in 1925. He attended Marquette University." Sounds abrupt transitioning from his family to his post-secondary education. It also makes it sound like Marquette University is in Green Bay (but it's not). Y
"However, Bogda and other civic leaders advocated for a public referendum on a city-led bond issuance to finance a 32,000 seat facility named New City Stadium at a cost of about $1,000,000." I think this is a wordy sentence. Maybe split into two sentences? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Y
MrLinkinPark333, reworded both. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  23:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Think you're all set. @Gonzo fan2007: Well done! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Johnpacklambert, sorry I thought you added Category:1910 births, not Category:1910s births. My bad! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  18:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
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)