Talk:Monett, Missouri/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 05:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead

The lead is quite short. The history section should be summarized by a paragraph or two.
The coordinates in the lead need to use {{coord}}
No citation given for the demonym, which isn't repeated in the body
First sentence uses "in" too many times
Being the 83rd most populous city in a state isn't really worth mentioning in the lead
Merge the population sentences
Use the un-abbreviated form of I-44 during its first mention

History

Several paragraphs are completely uncited
There is no caption for the church image
The WPA image isn't necessary, as it's hard to see at thumbnail size
"would build a branch going off" is rather wordy. And where did the branch terminate?
Link to postmaster (which is one word)
Break up the quadruple citation at the end of the first paragraph
"very much noted" by who and for what purpose? I don't think this is necessary.
Citation for the Fruit Growers building's listing on the NRHP. A year for the listing itself would also be nice.
Historic buildings should probably be split off into a different subsection, as they don't seem to be from the same eras.
Is there a more specific date for the start of the race riot?
No citation for the 2000 population
The 20th century section seems very thin compared to the previous one. It needs more content.
No citation for the first paragraph in the 21st century section, which also reads like an advertisement.
Two sentences beginning with "In 2018", one of which should be removed to avoid repetition.

Geography

The communities map should be converted to prose or removed entirely
The section is missing a lot of potential information. What is the town's geological setting like? Are there hills, lakes, rivers, or other prominent landmarks? Where do the city limits begin and end?
Is the climate data based on information supplied by an actual weather station? Weatherbase is not as reliable of a source as Weather.gov or another government provider.

Demographics

Paragraphs need in-line citations, even if they are just repeating the census links.
A description of the population's history, most predominant ethnicity, or other statistics is needed.

Economy

Citations?
Please describe the shopping center in a manner that doesn't elevate the Lowe's above any other retailers, or remove the sentence entirely.
Describe what the "rapid growth" is.
Link the company names and describe their industries.

Transportation

The inline highway shields are inappropriate. Spell out the full name of the highways before abbreviating them.
No citation for the highways section. Even the state map would be fine.
Describe more about the highways and the airport.
No citation for the trains section, which should be retitled to "Railroads"
The train image is missing a caption and is not particularly relevant

Education

Please describe the school district in a non-list format. Not every school needs to be mentioned by name, but data on pupils, funding, and a founding date would all be nice.
Same goes for the university and library. When were they built/founded?

Culture

None of the information here is cited, and it should be rewritten in a non-list format
Any information on parks, unique festivals, local holidays, and other traditions? This section seems rather thin.

Media

Please add prose descriptions instead of lists, along with citations

Notable people

Each entry in this section must be cited with a reliable source.
Entries without articles (e.g. Jack Henry) do not belong in the list.

Images

File:Downtown Monett.jpg is missing evidence of permission.

References

References 13 and 14 do not need long quotes, as they are publicly accessible. The title is also missing from the latter.
References 3, 8, 9, 17, 18, and 21 are missing publisher, date, and accessdate fields.
Reference 25, which I presume is pointing to another Wikipedia entry, must be replaced.
Citation dates in the references need to be harmonized per MOS:DATEFORMAT.

I will get to the other sections later, but so far I don't think this article is anywhere close to GA quality, so I'll be putting it on hold. I highly suggest finding more sources and also requesting a copyedit from GOCE or a local expert. I also suggest looking at other city and town articles that have already passed GA, especially those with a clear structure. Sounder Bruce 05:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cvanlue25: Please address the full set of issues listed above. Sounder Bruce 05:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: and @Cvanlue25: I have done some minor changes to the article to help fix some of the issues, but I agree with SounderBruce that this article is nowhere close to GA quality. It is poorly written, contains lists, and has no substantial information in all of its section. A ton of work is needed. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your feed back ::@SounderBruce:, and @AmericanAir88:. I understand there are immediate issues and not to the exact quality of a good article, however, it was my intention to draw attention to the page and for users to point out it's flaws. That has been accomplished. This is only a small hobby of mine and I will continue to work on these areas in time, but wanted to have clear direction in fixing this article. ^{User talk:Cvanlue25} 08:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cvanlue25: If you can't commit to fixing these issues in a timely manner, then this nomination will have to be closed. You can re-nominate the article once you are ready. Sounder Bruce 00:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cvanlue25: Thank you for your honesty. I appreciate that. Do not be discouraged from this article, it has potential. As Bruce said, you can renominate this. Thank you. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of substantial progress after nearly a month, I'm closing this review. Feel free to re-nominate the article once you have addressed the issues laid out in the GA criteria. Sounder Bruce 21:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]