# Talk:Robert Brodribb Hammond

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Brodribb Hammond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 03:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 20:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I will review this nomination. I aim to have it completed within a week. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
A few comments below, but overall quite well done.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Contains several instances of close paraphrasing that should be addressed before the review can be finalized. See Copyvio Detector report here. Much improved, thanks! As to original research, I conducted a source spot-check of Breward 1993 (p. 125 only), Lake 2012 and Mansfield 1983. Most of the spot-checks were fine, but there are a couple places where one of these source does not support the cited statement; they are noted below. And if a source is not available, I would also like to see a methodology for the inflation calculation discussed below.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Excellent balance of breadth and focus.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images are excellent, well-captioned, well-placed and copyright status is clear.
Overall: See comments below. Great work!
Pass/Fail: 

Thanks very much for taking this review @Dclemens1971! I’ve made some changes to address the places where the language was a bit too close to the source - let me know if you have any remaining CLOP concerns. The remaining things that are being flagged by Earwig seem to be largely just the same proper nouns, titles and dates across both the Lake and Mansfield sources. MCE89 (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)


### Detailed comments
@MCE89: A few comments on the text, style and sources for your consideration. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox style: The Reverend Canon. Is there a reason that he, as an archdeacon, would not have been granted the style of Venerable?
Whoops, fixed
Infobox ordination: Avoid use of small text in infoboxes per MOS:SMALLTEXT.
Done
Main text: George St. Avoid abbreviations in running text per MOS:COMMONABBR.
Done
the possibility of selling the church had begun to be broached. By whom?
Added some detail based on some newspaper sources. A church subcommittee had proposed selling the church in 1914, and at some point an ordinance for the sale had been prepared.
Why is Men's Meeting capitalized?
Fixed
£1000 each year (equivalent to $78,608 in 2022) What's the source for this inflation calculation? The only footnote on this sentence is a 1987 source that would obviously not speak to 2022 values.
I used the {{Inflation}} template for this. I've now added the standard {{Inflation/fn}} reference and have also updated the rounding parameter to avoid false precision. I'm not really familiar with using this template, but hopefully that looks okay now? I'm also happy to just remove the inflation calculations if you prefer.
Regarding the Hammond Hotels and the Hammond Family Hostels: were these informal terms or the formal names of these facilities? If the latter, did he name them after himself, or did someone else apply these names? A little more detail on this question would be helpful since the terms are capitalized. Likewise, the article makes clear that the ministries out of St. Barnabas were known as Hammond's Social Services, but was this a formal name or just a widely used term?
I can't find anything on the origins of the names for the hotels unfortunately. Newspapers from the time almost all use "Hammond Hotel" (sometimes "Hammond's Hotel" or "Hotel Hammond") as a proper noun, and I also found a couple of photographs showing that the buildings had signs painted on them saying "Hotel Hammond". But I can't find any sources that talk about the name, so I'm not sure there's much I can really add about this without getting into OR territory. "Hammond's Social Services" was definitely a formal name though, so I've added a sentence based on the ADB source to say that Hammond's Social Services was a registered charity formed to operate all of his initiatives at St Barnabas.
Hammond rejected the offer. Do the sources say why?
Added some detail on this
Regarding sources, Lake 2012 does not use the phrase "Mr Eternity" as suggested in One of these men was the prominent graffiti artist Arthur Stace, also known as "Mr Eternity".
Changed to "Eternity man" to match the source
By 1933 there were eight hotels housing 1000 men. Lake 2012 says the total housed by 1933 was 350. I cannot view the Judd and Cable source; is this the source of the 1,000 figure?
My mistake, the Judd and Cable book says that "by 1933 there were eight Hotels accommodating more than 1,000 men throughout the year". I've updated that sentence to correct this.
During the Great Depression, Hammond's Social Services also served more than 250,000 meals each year and distributed more than 20,000 pieces of clothing and 1200 pieces of furniture. Of the two sources here, Breward 1993 p. 125 does not support this sentence. Is it supported by Judd and Cable?
Yes, Judd and Cable write Hammond's Social Services had many other branches apart from the Hotels and Hostels...20,000 pieces of clothing and 1,200 pieces of furniture were distributed; food relief was given to thousands. Judd and Cable also say that A quarter of a million meals were served annually while Breward writes that more than a quarter of a million meals were served in a single year. I've changed the wording slightly from "more than 250,000 meals" to "around 250,000 meals" to more accurately reflect the two sources.
@MCE89: Once you've addressed these, please ping me and I'll take another look. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for the helpful comments! I have responded to each of your points above, let me know if you have any additional comments or questions. MCE89 (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
@MCE89 This is great. All issues addressed; I will move this review to passed momentarily. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)