Talk:Pierson, Iowa/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will review sometime this week. Sounder Bruce 19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 24, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: See below.

2. Verifiable?: See below.

3. Broad in coverage?: Quite a few missing sections: transportation or general infrastructure, local government, culture/events, notable people, healthcare. While some of these are covered, they need to be given separate sections or subsections.

A transportation section, a healthcare section, and a notable people section are not possible. An events section would be too short. The government section would be one sentence about having a city council. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral point of view?: Some sections are a bit too promotional to be truly neutral.

I take offense to the insinuation that I would try to bring a promotional article to GA. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?: Images would be appreciated. Even an aerial view from a USGS service would suffice until someone can drive to the city.

Images are not required. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sounder Bruce 01:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Education and business should be separate sections

I disagree. I would only agree if there was enough content to make two seperate sections worthwhile. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)`[reply]

Some of the sentences are choppy and should be combined to finish thoughts instead of cutting them off midway

Great. Which sentences? SL93 (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The state abbreviations are not necessary

Very vague. Are you saying to spell the whole state names out? SL93 (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence is a bit promotional

How so? It summarizes what the article already says in the body. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing the history here would be helpful

So is that a requirement or would it just be helpful? This comment is certainly unhelpful. SL93 (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

Any mention of indigenous peoples in the area?

Done. There are none. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing events from 1936 to 2000

I don't know how to approach this vague issue. How often should I mention an event? SL93 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where was Pierson from? Also, mentioning the relation between the two Piersons would help.

I am unable to answer where Pierson was from. As for the relation - you only said that it would help. Help what? SL93 (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"new streets", as in new roads laid down over greenfield sites or repaved streets?

I know that it was repaved streets, but that would be original research. I'm not sure if it matters for GA. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"with churches having services, a live band playing, food being served, and children decorating the streets with chalk" could be made cut down to "with church services, live music, food, and sidewalk chalk for children"

While it's true that it could be cut down, I'm questioning if that has anything to do with GA criteria. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The snowmobile accident and its memorial are not notable

Done. It was huge news for a town of very few people. Enough so that a memorial still stands. Again, not every topic within an article needs to be independently notable. SL93 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The World War I memorial probably does not need an entire paragraph's worth of coverage here.

Done. I shortened it despite you saying "probably". Very unhelpful. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

This section needs serious development. The coordinates should be removed in favor of human-readable information on the general location of the city in relation to its state and county.

I will need proof that the coordinates should be removed per my Kingsley, Iowa GA. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local topography, geology, and climate should all be mentioned here.

Topography and geology is not possible. As for climate, see my Kingsley, Iowa GA. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The city's exact boundaries should be described as well.

Boundaries as compared to what? The surrounding countryside? SL93 (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Table citation should use the existing ref format instead of being awkwardly placed in the table

What is a table citation? SL93 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph describing the demographic history of the city is needed.

I would like proof that it is needed. My Kingsley, Iowa GA did not have that information. SL93 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are needed for each paragraph, even if this a template.

Done. SL93 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any notable groups to mention here?

Done. No. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Education and business

The post office and cemetery should not be mentioned here.

I disagree. The postal service is clearly a government-run business. Cemeteries need to make money too by selling land to bury people and such. SL93 (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate a bit on the school district and its history

The wikilink for the school district is there. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The library paragraph is a bit too large and could be cut down.

Done. SL93 (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Churches do not fall into either education or business (one would hope)

Done. Moved. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the restaurant worth noting in the article? The paragraph seems promotional in nature.

Done. Removed. It was never meant to be promotional and I take offense. SL93 (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organization listings should have descriptions and better sources

I can't fix the issue until I know what would be considered better sources. Very vague. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation

"contains an area that has plants and flowers that are native to the area": how is this notable?

Done. Not everything within an article about a topic needs to be notable. It is one of the few features of the town. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "purpose" sentence should be removed

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Combine the shelter and amenities sentences

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion needed for the yards

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Combine the first two sentences of the second paragraph

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battern Memorial Park should be moved to the first paragraph, as it doesn't seem to belong with the memorials

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the arts" can go without "the"

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"summer of 2017" should be replaced with the month per MOS:SEASON

Done. Summer of 2017 is all of that summer. Not one specific month. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more details available about the festival? Number of acts and associated events should all be mentioned.

I'm at a loss with this one. You wanted me to shorten already small paragraphs and now you want more content for a small town festival. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Combine the last two sentences of this paragraph

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Date formats needs to be consistent

Done SL93 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Census citations need to use consistent formatting
- Ref 2 needs to capitalize "States"

Done. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Refs 2 and 13 should not use "Census.gov" as a publisher

It doesn't list Census.gov in the publisher area. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Ref 12 seems to be redundant to Ref 11

Why does that matter? SL93 (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Refs 14 and 15 need to have better titles, because they seem to be redundant

I never came across such a rule. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3 seems to be an advertisement and is missing the page number
- Ref 17 also has the same problem
- I am also concerned with the paraphrasing from this one source (which is also 17 years old). Try to change up the wording a bit more, especially when listing organizations and churches.

Is the 17 years old bit relevant? SL93 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 needs a publisher

The publisher is already there. It was written and published by the Chicago and North Western Railway Company. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 8 needs a publisher

Done. It doesn't need a publisher. SL93 (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 16 does not seem to be a reliable source

Done. I removed all mentions of the post office. It's probably not even relevant since most US towns have one. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 18 should not use all caps and should use {{cite map}}

I fixed the all caps issue. I disgaree on cite map needing to be used. I don't even know to use that anyway. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 20 needs a page number

Done. The paragraph has been removed. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 21 (Mapquest) is not a reliable source

Done. Paragraph with it is gone. SL93 (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 22 and 23 are not reliable sources

Done. I removed the golf course sentence and replaced the cemetery link with a 23 page book reference. I can't add any relevant information other than that the cemetery exists due to only having access to the first page. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix these issues. I don't understand the insta-fail also. What do you mean by healthcare? There are 337 people there as of the 2020 census so there are no hospitals or any such things. Transportation? There is no public transit, Lyft, Uber, train, or anything like that. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]