Talk:The Marion Star

Untitled

I'm looking for a poem that Warren G. Harding wrote to his Boston Terrier, Hub, when Hub died. The dog was reportedly poisoned by an unknown person at Harding's Marion, OH, home. A portrait of the dog hangs at the house, and I was told by a tour guide that Harding published an "Ode to Hub" after the dog's untimely demise. Since Harding owned the Marion Star, he was able to publish the poem without any trouble. Any ideas?

Infobox etc.

Infobox is missing info. Needs front page, cost of copy of paper, etc. The article is missing expanded mention of its political and editorial policies/stance. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomson or Thompson?

For a number of years, the paper was part of the Thompson Newspaper chain based in Canada...

In this sentence, the name links-thru to 'Thomson Newspapers' (no 'p'), and it is also spelt without the 'p' further down the same para. Yet when I tried to delete the 'p', the name showed in red. Can anyone explain this - or sort it? Valetude (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: RandFreeman (talk · contribs) 02:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 16:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I will review this as part of my pledge for the review at Talk:Silvius Leopold Weiss/GA1. I hope to review this by the time you return from your Wikibreak. —Kusma (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I've pretty much returned (it was hardly a real wikibreak), so I'm available. Rand Freeman (talk | stalk) 17:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't available enough, but I should get through this over the long (in the UK) weekend. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and no worries! Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 17:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@RandFreeman: I will pass this now. You generously pledged to review two articles to be chosen by me. I won't hold you to that (it can be quite hard to review an article about a random topic far outside your expertise and interest) but if you would like me to suggest something, I'd ask for anything listed on Wikipedia:Good article review pledges, especially the oldest article, Inside CECOT. —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Content and prose review

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

• Lead: would it make sense to mention the political orientation here?
• Overview: not sure in what sense this section is an "overview".
• The circulation figures need to come with a date unless you want to say that they have been the same every day since 1877. Do we know anything about the number of digital subscribers?
• Why are there special print editions?
• History: is it worth giving some background about Marion? (large/small city, was it important at the time, ...). This is one of the questions where "no" is a perfectly fine answer. :)
• I like that it was the "Daily Star", like the paper in the comic that taught me all I know about the newspaper business in the 19th century USA.
• Give a short description of The World's Work ("business magazine")?
• Why would praising Blaine alienate subscribers?
• "the real estate George had traded was invalid" I don't quite understand what invalid real estate is.
• Management by Warren G. Harding: the footnote a that Sickle is also spelled Sickel is unsourced.
• "... paid the Star's staff better than competitor newspapers" do we know who the competitor newspapers were?
• "by 1885 it had financially recovered; while Harding was a senator" when was Harding a senator?

More later! —Kusma (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead: would it make sense to mention the political orientation here? Added a sentence about it.

The circulation figures need to come with a date unless you want to say that they have been the same every day since 1877. Do we know anything about the number of digital subscribers? Added the year (2007). I haven't found any information yet about the number of digital subscribers.

History: is it worth giving some background about Marion? (large/small city, was it important at the time, ...). This is one of the questions where "no" is a perfectly fine answer.:) Probably not. An interested reader can read more about Marion in the article Marion, Ohio linked in this one.

I like that it was the "Daily Star", like the paper in the comic that taught me all I know about the newspaper business in the 19th century USA.

Give a short description of The World's Work ("business magazine")? Done.

Why would praising Blaine alienate subscribers? I don't know, because the source doesn't specify. In the name of avoiding WP:SYNTH I think it's fine to leave it at that.

"the real estate George had traded was invalid" I don't quite understand what invalid real estate is. Neither do I. Because the source is in the public domain I've replaced my rephrasing with a quotation of the original wording.

Management by Warren G. Harding: the footnote a that Sickle is also spelled Sickel is unsourced. Added a source using the alternate spelling.

"by 1885 it had financially recovered; while Harding was a senator" when was Harding a senator? Added a date range. Rephrased to be closer to the source, which, being from 1922, is in the public domain.

I'll respond to the other concerns later. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 17:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Overview: not sure in what sense this section is an "overview". Information I thought was worth including in the article but that did not fit in any of the other sections. I named the section "Overview" because I do not know what else to call it. Any ideas?

Why are there special print editions? The Marion Star's website doesn't specify why, or even what the differences are between the Thanksgiving/Premium and regular editions. I couldn't find this information elsewhere.

"... paid the Star's staff better than competitor newspapers" do we know who the competitor newspapers were? Technically yes, another source gives information about a few of the Star's competitors, but I do not want to synthesise. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 02:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• The quotation about Harding's death is rather long. I had to look up ptomaine poisoning.
• Brush-Moore Newspapers: you could be more explicit about the Marion Star being part of that portfolio.
• The "Later History" section still has a lot of Harding-related content. I wonder whether the post-WW2 history could be a separate (sub-)section.
• Notable staff: it would be nice to include when Norman Thomas worked for the Star. (And you could consider renaming this "Other notable staff" or include Harding and his wife).

Overall an enjoyable read with little to complain about the prose. It does seem to be a bit more "History of the Marion Star" than about the currently existing newspaper, which is barely mentioned. I understand that it is significantly easier to find sources about Harding's involvement with the Star than about the current editor (the one mentioned in the infobox was correct in 2007 and left in 2014). There seem to be only two reporters nowadays?

• Other sources I found while looking around: (a little about the 1970s) (only newspaper in its county)
• In 2000 the circulation was 15,605 daily and Saturdays; 16,771 Sundays (Gannett acquisitions to change area's media landscape. Showalter, Kathy.  Business First; Columbus Vol. 16, Iss. 44, (Jun 23, 2000): 7.)
• Circulation figures for 2012: 6,416 daily 8,073 Sunday. (Gannett co inc - Annual/10K report, 2012. (2012). (). Kuching: Acquisdata Pty Ltd. Retrieved from ProQuest Central Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/reports/gannett-co-inc-annual-10k-report-2012/docview/1418865991/se-2)
• Later reports don't seem to list smaller individual newspapers.

Will look at sources and comment on criteria next, then check out your responses. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1352428992.

• Not a GA comment, but it is better not to use all caps (MOS:ALLCAPS).
• Citation 53 was looking funny, I hope I fixed it.
• 1: doesn't really say that Gannett became USA Today, but OK here (should probably have a reference somewhere in the article)
• 10: yes, but it is not by "Roberts", but an article called "One year of President Harding" by Mark Sullivan.
• 15: a somewhat obscure source for this claim, but it is there.
• 33: ok
• 38: did not access
• 45: fine
• 50: fine
• 56: fine
• 65: fine

Spot checks passed, minor comments above. —Kusma (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a GA comment, but it is better not to use all caps (MOS:ALLCAPS). Changed to sentence case.

Citation 53 was looking funny, I hope I fixed it. Thank you!

1: doesn't really say that Gannett became USA Today, but OK here (should probably have a reference somewhere in the article) Added a reference.

10: yes, but it is not by "Roberts", but an article called "One year of President Harding" by Mark Sullivan. Corrected the reference. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 14:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

General comments and GA criteria

• Generally happy with prose and MoS adherence, even if the lead is a bit short. Not putting a tick mark here yet because I still want to go through your responses to my remaining comments.
• Ref layout passes the GA bar.
• Sources are a bit old, but I can't see a reason to expect they are unreliable.
• No OR/CV concerns.
• Broadness/focus: The article is massively more detailed in the Harding section while other times (especially the present) are barely mentioned. Comparing with other GAs (Parsons Sun, McCook Gazette) an over-emphasis on history seems common, but here the presence of Harding nearly drowns out all other content.
• No neutrality/stability issues.
• Image licenses and captions look fine.

It is a nice article about the Star under Harding, with some question marks on whether it is a good article on the Star overall. I certainly enjoyed reading it and learning about Harding. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm currently looking for sources on ProQuest of the Star's contemporary history. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 16:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have looked on ProQuest, SAGE Journals, Google Books and the general Wikipedia Library search, and have found almost nothing about The Marion Star, outside of Harding's involvement, that I have not already included in the article. I found this article about the Star's pre-Harding history, but I strongly doubt its reliability because it contradicts all the other sources (which recount invariably that the Marion Daily Pebble was founded in 1877 by Sam Hume and did not become exactly the Marion Star until the 1920s) and names Sickle and Dempster incorrectly. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 17:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Added a little information about the current staffing, the move of headquarters and the 1976 strike. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 22:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@RandFreeman: Lots of good changes. I think I am happy with the amount of material on recent history now (but I do think it was worth searching more thoroughly). Basically my main remaining concerns are to do with sectioning/section naming/lead length and whether the long Harding obituary editorial really needs to be quoted in full, given that it contains nothing about Harding's time at the Star. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the long quotation, put the time period between 1923 and 1967 under a new subsection, expanded the lead and renamed the Overview section to Current operations. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 04:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I am happy now. It no longer looks like an article about "Warren Harding and the Marion Star". —Kusma (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that US president Warren G. Harding died less than two months after selling his newspaper?

• Source: Harding sold The Marion Star in late June of 1923 (this NYT article states "WASHINGTON, June 20.—President Harding has relinquished control of his newspaper") and died in early August of that year (Harding's obituary in the Star is datelined "San Francisco, Cal., Aug. 3." and titled "President Harding Succumbs To Death").

• • ALT1: ... that newspaper publishers Louis H. Brush and Roy D. Moore were accused of bribing US president Warren G. Harding into selling them his newspaper? Source: "Mr. Vanderlip's Crusade" states that "the bribe consisted of the payment to President Harding of $550,000 in the purchase of The Marion Star".
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by RandFreeman (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ stalk} 22:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new enough and long enough. Hook facts are both interesting and cited. No image to check. Copyvio tool finds no issues. Looks good to go!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)