This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
The "History" section is not chronological, as it should be. Sources should only be mentioned where they are important - typically in a controversy; the first "Leary writes" is thus unnecessary. Paragraphs are too long, particularly the second in the "History" section; all the sentences in a paragraphs should have something in common [other than the section heading].
Undetermined
(b) (MoS)
The lead section is disproportionately too large, at about 20% of the body of the text. It contains details, such as information about graffiti, that do not belong in a summary (see WP:LEAD).
The final sentence of the body of the article is original research. The writer of that sentence appears to believe that an omission occurred, but has no source to cite regarding this omission. Similarly, the initial phrase in the sentence "Despite a lack of information published by ... " is original research; the writer is commenting on an omission by a potential source.
Undetermined
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Undetermined
(b) (focused)
Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a guide. The detailed directions for getting to the park are not suitable for an encyclopedic article, which is intended to be a summary.
Undetermined
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Undetermined
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Undetermined
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
I have doubts that this article can reach GA status simply because I doubt there is enough material to justify a "Good" assessment. There is but a single source (of the 10 cited) that is solely about this particular park, and this low level of notability seems to me to be fairly unsurmountable. There isn't anything wrong with this being a solid "B" class article, after appropriate changes are made (see above).
Just a quick drive-by comment, I had similar concerns over length with Farm River State Park, for exactly the same reason. Ultimately, a search for sources myself satisfied that the article was just about long enough to cover the major aspects of a fairly insignificant park that doesn't have a substantial history. I don't think we should "puff up" articles to a certain length, as that may fail the "focused" part of the GA criteria. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the issues with directions and the omission - this was actually the first park one I did so it still shows signs of my attempt to curate and compile a broader knowledge of this park. Other fixes were done as well. The article does not have a notability issue - it is a designated state park and it meets WP:GNG anyways. The key problem you are actually seeing is the lack of sources on an obscure state park. Size or depth of detail are not actually issues when all existing sources have been exhausted or "unknowns" stemming from unrecorded or lost data exist on a subject. For example: How Brown Saw the Baseball Game and Katsudō Shashin are very short Featured Articles, and the unknowns in the latter is unresolvable. The year of production, the manufacturer and even its purpose is unknown - but the article represents everything known on the clip. I feel that I have covered the history and the activities of the park that is neither tended or maintained as best I could, but I'll gladly address any information gaps if you can provide any source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John Broughton - I double checked my State Register and Manual books, 1934 mentions the park size and creation number, but 1933 and 1932 do not cover the parks at all. These are often good for size increase markers because they do not typically get recorded. I checked Newspapers.com which has an extensive archive like Google (for The Day) and got only a redundant hit. Chronicling America is out and ORRRC study report #21 was a mere listing. If you can dig up anything - I'd be pleasantly surprised because Leary's book is the "go-to" for history of the parks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
I have just contacted reviewer John Broughton on his talk page, and he said "I've made my comments, and I really don't have anything else to add.", so he agreed that I should put the nomination back into the reviewing pool, which I have done. With any luck, a new reviewer will choose this nomination to review in the near future. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There are no facilities, toilets, or other markers": a toilet isn't a marker, so this would probably be better as "There are no markers, toilets, or other facilities".
Suggest identifying Joseph Leary when you mention him -- "historian", for example, if that's appropriate, or just "In his book on Connecticut's state park's, author Joseph Leary" if that's all we know about him.
Have you consulted Hidden History of Litchfield County by Peter C. Vermilyea? Parts are available on Google Books, and he gives some more detail about the GFA that might be interesting. A text search only finds "Above All" in the section on the GFA so that might be the only relevant material.
Vermilyea doesn't include the "(GFA)" in his mention of the cold war installation and it seems pretty clear that that's just an abbreviation for it. Since we don't use the abbreviation later in the article I don't think it needs to be included.
"and notes Lake Waramaug State Park, Mount Tom State Park and Dennis Hill State Park respectively": I think you mean something like "and notes that the park is outdone in these respects by ..."; as it stands this sentence doesn't make sense.
I think the order of presentation in the article isn't ideal. Wouldn't it be better to start with the history? The first paragraph of the body talks about the Stone family and some information about the 19th-century, so we're jumping around in time a bit. Something like "The land was farmed in the 18th century [or whenever it was] by the Stone family, who claimed it was [...]; by 1927 it was owned by the Strong family, who gifted the land to the state that year", and so on.
Any chance of a picture of the bunker? There seem to be a few pictures of it on the web; I don't know if any of them have a suitable license.
I have not been to the site personally - some of the sources show pictures, but these are not under appropriate license. Image use policy will not allow a non-free image to be used for this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need "Bedell and Leary state that" and "Bedell more specifically states that" -- your sources are in the footnote and there's nothing controversial here that needs attribution, except perhaps for the comment about the park having reverted to secrecy, since that's contradicted elsewhere.
"and recorded for at least one year": the intransitive use of "recorded" is a bit odd; how about something like "and recorded wind data for at least a year"?
What makes "Radomes" a reliable source for our purposes? (I'm not saying it's not, but I don't immediately see much information about its editorial approach on the site.)
"The site has also been the subject of graffiti." No need for "also", and "the subject of" isn't quite right -- that would mean that graffiti elsewhere referred to it. I think "vandalized by graffiti" would be more natural.
"but notes the radar tower and chain-link fencing are missing": is the subject of "notes" the photos or the Radome website? If the former, it should be "note"; if the latter, the sentence needs to be rewritten to make that clear.
The infobox says "Unspecified" for "Established", but surely it was established in 1927, per the gift from Seymour Strong's heirs?'
The only reason why I have not done this is that the state parks have been profoundly impacted in there establish dates with other such gifts.
If you have access to newspapers.com, there's an article in the 9 December 1927 Bridgeport Telegram about the purchase -- it's just a snippet but it might as well be cited. If you don't have access, I can clip it for you if you like. It refers to the Stanley estate rather than the heirs of Seymour Strong, but perhaps those are the same people.
Take a look at this; what's interesting is that this is from a 1915 report. It looks like there was a gift of three acres from the heirs of Seymour Strong, and the purchase from the Stanley estate added to that in 1927. That's in line with the Bridgeport Telegram article.
That Google Ebook is a bundle of reports, if you page up you can see this report containing that information comes from 1928 for the end of the fiscal year. Google does this with quite a few of these reports. I think adding the Stanley estate (if you could provide the link) would be best. I knew it was expanded, but the parcel(s) were unknown to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This might be too detailed, but this book has some information on expenditures on the park in one particular year.
You are correct, the fact only one year is really visible and able to be utilized from that snippet is not really a big deal. Some of these parks have very little upkeep and I often think very little of expense reports. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go through and strike individual points above; almost all of it looks good now. I made a couple of copyedits. Newspapers.com seems to be down right now; I will post the link when I can get to it. The rewrite of the first body para isn't quite right. How about changing the last sentence to 'An alternative explanation comes from Connecticut; a Guide to Its Roads, Lore, and People, which says the park is noted for its "woodland trails, excellent views, and a 'top of the world' isolation that explains its name."'? That's the only thing I see left, other than the link, which I'll post when I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undetermined