(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]
Undetermined