Talk:Becket Hill State Park Reserve/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 15:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is too long for such a short article - about a third of the whole article. I would cut it down, especially where you use exactly the same words in the main text.
"undeveloped" - I think you need some words of explanation in brackets or a note. (I would leave the word out of the lead and give it with an explanation in the main text).
Is nothing known of Becket - not even his first name?
"and Norwich Pond in the west and the land extends east" - not sure what this means, land is bound to extend east from its western boundary. This also applies to the same comment in the main text.
You could link Nehantic to Niantic people.
"Becket Hill is has accessibility problems and is returning to a natural state". Ungrammatical. Perhaps something like is returning to its natural state because it is rarely visited due to difficulty in accessing it.
You could link Mohegans.
described as one of the best fishing spots in Connecticut. A POV comment like this should really be attributed as "described by [name]"
References look OK but no access date for no. 1.
Unfortunate but understandable that no photo is available.
This should pass once amendments are made. I will put it on hold for now. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix this tomorrow. Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles - I fixed the issues and also removed the verbose directions in favor of last minor artery preference. A few issues remain with terminology which I cannot really describe without being overly verbose. Undeveloped is a lack of development - a lack of structures, pathways, bathrooms. Returning to a "natural state" is not because of its obscurity or anything do to its "non-use" - the intention is to let nature reclaim the land and revert it to a "natural state". And I did not find any individual record to the settler's name, but it could have been a landowner of some otherwise trivial note in relationship to the park matter. If Leary couldn't trace it... bah. I had a hell of a time (and never conclusively) figured out another case similiar to this. Named after "a Beckett" or "Becket" is the origin, but "which one" becomes another issue. If you can get a source, I'd be pleased - and I think the DEEP would be as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there. Just needs access dates for refs 1 and 6. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles It is a database, but I don't know how to put that in when its a template that does not pass the actual function. Though, again, it is listed as entered on 07-Aug-2001 if you can also pass a publish date. If you can fix it without entire removal and reconfiguring the entire reference, tell me, because like the NRIS template I do not know how to resolve it. Though the GA criteria really doesn't need it or should need it in either case because of the way upon which these systems work. Also Ref 6 is a book and should not have an access date because it cannot change. The URL for Ref 6 is out of convenience for reader verification. I did however add the year field. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now and I have passed it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]