Talk:Sleepy Hollow Country Club/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: NickGibson3900 (talk · contribs) 06:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is too short for such a long article. in needs to summarise the whole article. I will come back to do a few review when it has been expanded - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing that I'm not always good at, and might need some advice as to what more content is worthwhile to add. I really don't think all of the details on its architecture and history are significant enough to be placed in the lead; it's almost better to keep it short than have less-helpful information. What do you think?--ɱ (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: What you need is a summary of each section. For example: Put 3-4 sentences about the history. A few more about the architecture and maybe a sentence or two about popular culture. That would suffice. See WP:LEAD for more information. BTW it says for articles the size of Sleepy Hollow Country Club two paragraphs are needed, you may say you do have two paragraphs, but stub paragraphs aren't whats meant, the paragraphs have to be quite long. I'm really sorry because I know that lead writing isn't the most fun part of the article, but many readers only read the lead. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're being ridiculous. I'm really not going to put up with you as a reviewer if you interpret things like this so strictly. The GA guidelines, with regard to lead paragraphs, only mention to follow the MOS's guidelines. And the MOS recommends one to two paragraphs for an article of this size (which it has right now), but isn't very strict on its guidelines, and it even discourages too long of leads. So please, having written this article start to finish, I've determined that there's nothing more of great significance worth mentioning in this article's lead. Thank you.--ɱ (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ɱ, please AGF and be civil, I'm just trying to help you improve the article. I will leave the lead for now but I would sill recommend a little bit more in the lead. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you.--ɱ (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/Infobox

Reference: Added to NRHP September 7, 1984

done.--ɱ (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Club

Good

Architecture

Good

Popular culture

Good

Scorecard

Good

References

1: Uses 2014-01-01 while most other refs use January 1, 2014, needs retrieval date

done.--ɱ (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else

Good

Summary

Very good article with few faults. I will pass this when my to points have been addressed. Nice job — NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickGibson3900:: Okay, done.--ɱ (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]