Talk:Huletts Landing, New York/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Add en dashes to the year ranges in the history section. Also, add a conversion for acres in the last paragraph of the same section.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Add a paragraph of climate information to the geography section. Nothing substantial, just the record high, record low, average rain, etc.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Good work for the most part. I do have a few concerns, however, so I'm putting the article on hold to allow for them to be fixed. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like all of my concerns were addressed. The article passes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm having serious doubts and concerns whether this article meets the GA criteria. It seems to lack a lot in the "completeness" department. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- This a hamlet, Dr.Cash, it hardly has info in the first place. Do you expect [the same] info to exist for every single one of these?Mitch32(UP) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Derek, this article is about a very small community smaller than a village. The reliable sources are rather scarce. DurovaCharge! 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- There seems to be this belief that if an article is incomplete because of a lack of reliable sources, then somehow this allows editors to circumvent GA criteria. I just don't believe that to be the case. Not every article deserves to be promoted simply because it doesn't have any egregious errors. Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)