Talk:Bexley, Ohio

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Jeffrey Mansion

Jeffrey Mansion is not the Governor's Mansion. It was donated to the city of Bexley by the Jeffrey family for use as a public park facility. (We used to have our Boy Scout Troop meetings and high school graduation parties there 60 years ago.) To the best of my knowledge no one has ever lived there since it was given to the city. The Jeffrey Mansion is located on the West side of Parkview Ave.

The Governor's Mansion is on the other side of the street 3 blocks North of the Jeffrey Mansion on the corner of Parkview and Maryland Ave. The confusion may stem from the fact that what is now the Governor's Mansion was also owned by the Jeffrey family. 68.100.20.143 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Good information, but seems to ramble on.

also, very bias, no POV

Could someone post some informaiton on Bexley as the main Jewish hub of central ohio? (Huberfamily 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Could someone verify that the first image on the page is indeed from Bexley, Ohio? In the commons it is in the category "London Borough of Bexley". Thanks! 71.194.148.220 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is indeed that of Bexley, Ohio, City Hall.--Alabamaboy 16:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bexley, Ohio, article is much better. Less repetition, more information, less biased, citations included for previously unsupported statements and claims, rather exhaustive reference section (too exhaustive?), format that is easier on the eyes, relevant images added. Well-written and grammatically correct. It's obvious that a lot of research was done to improve the article.

Quality as yet has not been assessed. Recommend GA, based on the revised articles content, presentation, writing style and grammar, and extensive source material.

Importance previously rated as Low. This should be raised, but one criterion for importance is the city's population. Bexley has a population of less than 14,000, so it seems that Mid is the highest importance rating that can be given. Recommend increasing importance from Low to Mid.

Hope this is helpful to the Ohio Project.

--aps301 07:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bexley, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bexley, Ohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delist. Limited discussion and participation indicates lack of effort present to make this article meet GA standards (which are clearly not met yet). As well, it is clear that GA status was improperly given in the first place. $ɱ$ (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Bexley, Ohio/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article was added as a Good Article in 2010, by a then-new editor, simply by adding "class=GA" to the WikiProject template. The article does not meet several GA standards:

Its sourcing is unclear. There are only 11 inline citations, many of which are just being used in the population table. The rest of the "citations" are poorly-formatted and unclear. Many of them are likely not even used, and many are not Reliable Sources.
1. BexleyOhio. com (Cities Unlimited, Inc., 2001) - dead
2. Comedy Central: The Colbert Report (Comedy Partners, 2010) - not an RS
3. The Washington Examiner (Washington Newspaper Publishing Co. LLC, 2008) - vague
4. The San Francisco Examiner (S.F. Newspaper Co. LLC, 2008) - vague
5. USA Today (Gannett Co., Inc., 2010) - vague
6. The Los Angeles Times (Tribune Interactive, Inc., 2007) - vague
7. Cagle Cartoons (Daryl Cagle, 2010) - not an RS
8. How I Met Your Mother (CBS, 2005) - not an RS
9. Tumblr, Inc. (Marco Arment, 2007) - not an RS
10. Miss America (Miss America Organization, 1921) - not an RS
11. Something Corporate (Andrew McMahon, 1998) - not an RS
12. Jack's Mannequin (Andrew McMahon, 2004) - not an RS
13. Amazon. com (Amazon Services LLC, 1996–2010) - not an RS
14. Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2008) - not always an RS
It is not broad in its coverage, lacking "Climate", "Economy", "Arts and culture", "Religion", "Sports", "Parks and recreation", "Media", and "Infrastructure" sections, all common in US cities articles and possible in this article.
Its use of external links in the article body violate WP:EL
Its illustrations are lacking compared to what is available on Commons, and the last image and caption are vague and unhelpful.

For these reasons, it's clear to me this needs significant work to be held as a Good Article, and needs to be delisted until the day someone decides to put in this great amount of work. $ɱ$ (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this article **not** "GA", nor it is "B" either. I would say "C" at the highest, and maybe even as low as "Start" until the reference mess is cleaned up. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Demographics" section needs cleaned up too, because of the text above "2010 census" subsection. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick cleanup of the article, but I avoided trying to fix the reference mess. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements. I agree it is still around C-class. The editor who added "GA" to it had only edited for a few months, handful of edits here and there, 9 years ago. Another editor apparently removed the GA tag from the article in 2013 as well, citing no review. Unless this really gets to GA standards in a week, I'll start the delist process.

ɱ

(talk) 05:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.