Talk:Hummelstown, Pennsylvania

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on January 04, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
had a virtual or complete lack of reliable sources
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. According to the verifiability policy, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." There are only 2 sources. A severe lack of sources for an article this length is apalling, with nearly every section unreferenced. Any editors who wish to bring this up to GAN standard, I suggest citing more sources (at least 40), but not only that; reliable ones too. If you wish you can take this to reassessment to get it discussed by other reviewers and/or other editors. I encourage you to do the steps listed and resubmit when finished. Thank you. Regards, Rt. 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

Once again, this article has to be quick-failed because of its "complete lack of reliable sources" - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are only three references for this piece - virtually the same number as when the article was reviewed back in January, thus making it ineligible for Good Article consideration.

This policy reads: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." The last reviewer suggested the article needed a minumum of 40 reliable references to help it pass GA, however this concern has not yet been addressed.

There are other problems, too, that I have spotted, which would need tackling before GA status could be considered. For example, Wikipedia does not encourage the use of lists, and would prefer editors to replace these with prose. This article, however, contains several such lists including parks, schools and bars. The 'notable residents' section is also a stubby list, and needs rewriting or leaving out.

Another problem are the many red links. If possible, seperate articles should be created to link in with these or, if the subject is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, then don't link them all.

A good, solid start has been made on this article, but a lot more needs doing to it. For example, Hummelstown obviously has a history stretching back several centuries, so this needs expanding and further referencing.

If you wish you can take this to reassessment to get it discussed by other reviewers and/or other editors. I encourage you to do the steps listed and resubmit when finished. Thank you. Regards, --seahamlass 09:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Churches and bars sections

Should churches and bars be included in the article? Are these encyclopedic? The George Washington stay could be relocated to the "History" section. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I added cleanup and copyedit tags to the article to draw some attention to these issues. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Some useful links

• Here is a list of some useful links I found when googling (perhaps we can use these to update the page and use for references/citations):

The Google index: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=n7H&q=Hummelstown+Pennsylvania+History&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=

http://www.hummelstown.net/

http://www.city-data.com/city/Hummelstown-Pennsylvania.html

http://www.americantowns.com/pa/hummelstown

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-479001-hummelstown_pa_vacations-i

http://www.wunderground.com/US/PA/Hummelstown.html

http://www.bnbfinder.com/Hummelstown/Pennsylvania-Bed-and-Breakfast

http://www.hummelstownhistorical.org/

http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=14159

http://www.museumsusa.org/museums/info/1155893

http://www.tarmans.com/?page=shop/browse&category_id=6

Search, comment by: The Rypcord. 20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

GAN

I've quick-failed the article in it's most recent GA nomination. Please don't get discouraged, and I suggest Teaneck, New Jersey as a model. According to the GA criteria:

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

• The sentences are extremely choppy; this isn't the main reason for this not passing, but I suggest a copy-edit at some point.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The lead of the article does not summarize its information.
• The Annual cultural events section can probably be made into prose (see Wikipedia:Embedded list).

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

• More references are needed throughout.

(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);

• Same as above.

(c) it contains no original research

• The folklore section seems extremely OR-based.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• WP:USCITY gives information on what should be included.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• File:Hummelstown Map.png needs a description.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• File:Hummelstown Map.png, upon expansion, might be placed in the geography section.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon request, I'll give a more detailed description of what I feel needs to be done. Because model articles are helpful, I'll suggest again Teaneck, New Jersey and WP:USCITY.

• In an above section, you give a list of sources. This is a very good start, and crucial to improving an article. For more sources (if those run dry), perhaps take a trip to the Hummelstown library and ask if they have any books on local history.
• Next, expansion. I'll go through section by section, giving suggestions on what to do. Remember, references are your friend and should be used extensively.
  • For history, take the reader through early history (pre-Europeans; I suggest moving the existing Native American section here), colonization, growth, and modern history (such as the 61st best town distinction: how did this impact the town?).
  • The geography section in place is good start. The Teaneck geography section can be used as a template (e. g. copying and correcting information). The climate table will be easy to make, just use the same source.
  • The Demographics section shouldn't be hard. Teaneck does it well, and I don't think a "Crime" or "Historical population data" is needed for GA. However, if you live in the town and know what crimes were particularly notable, include those (with references, of course).
  • Economy might be a bit tricky. Is there a major institute (hospital, college, etc.)? The hard part is remaining neutral and professional.
  • The arts and culture section in place is a good start. If there are any museums, talk about them. Like I said in the GA review, make the annual events prose and give more detailed descriptions.
  • Government is pretty simple. Give details of the town's political system and federal, state and county representation (see Teaneck).
  • Media is basically any newspapers or radio stations located here. This might be extremely short.
  • Infrastructure and education (see the city guideline) I highly recommend. Can be included are recreation and notable resident sections.
• Now you're done with the hard part. Use the lead to showcase your hard work by summarizing the major points. Try to touch on every section, and maybe look over WP:LEAD.
• After this is done, it's time to polish the article by getting feedback. You can ask for a peer review or ask me at any point how I think the article is coming along.
• Ask someone with fresh eyes to copy-edit the article; someone unfamiliar with the subject is the best reader.
• Time for the payoff. Take a look at the GA criteria and see if it passes. Finally, renominate at GAN.

This isn't an easy process (I've never written a good article). You can get support from numerous places (me, associated wikiprojects, any other editors you know). Most importantly, do not hesitate to ask me for help or comments. I promise, I don't bite :) Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Mearkle

No mention of this major incident anywhere on the page? It's a HUGE story thats getting national and international coverage! She shot an unarmed man, as a police woman, in the back, while he was on the ground, with tasers in him! Why is there not a single thing about this? PennLive alone has about 30 different articles on their site!!! 74.99.170.107 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hummelstown, Pennsylvania. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html

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) 20:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)