Talk:Hartford, Connecticut/GA3
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Will review, but the article seems to have several citation needed tags that need to be resolved. SounderBruce 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies if I'm kind of barging in here, but this article is of interest to me and I will help out somewhat when I have a chance, hopefully starting tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- From a quick look, I see some aspects of the history missing, and way too much emphasis on Elizabeth Colt and the Colt family for some reason. Will work on those areas when I get a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- From a more comprehensive look, I don't think this article is ready for GAN at all, though it's ultimately up to the reviewer to decide. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- From a quick look, I see some aspects of the history missing, and way too much emphasis on Elizabeth Colt and the Colt family for some reason. Will work on those areas when I get a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination
[edit]This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 12, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: The prose needs to be polished, with informal language such as "gotten" and "like" used too often. Weasel words such as "vibrant" are also used several times and need to be cleaned up to comply with NPOV. The Points of interest section is tagged with needing conversion to prose, which I agree with; in its current state, it's long and not particularly interesting due to the loose selection criteria.
- 2. Verifiable?: Many sections are lacking suitable citations, especially parts of the pre-20th century history, the Sports table, and Government.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Coverage of parks, media, and arts leave much to be desired, while there's overemphasis on emergency services and recent developments.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Seem to be promotional at times, especially in the "Recent developments" section that uses booster-ish language. Other issues include the Government section, which seems to praise mayor Perez ("widely credited", with only one citation) and does not present a balanced view of the government system.
- 5. Stable?:
Pass - 6. Images?: Fire stations gallery has to go, as well as the mismash in the Points of interest.
The article has improved slightly since the nomination was opened (mainly with the removal of undue coverage in the History section), but has a long way to go before it's ready for another attempt.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— SounderBruce 06:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)