Jump to content

Talk:Seymour, Indiana/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Asheiou (talk · contribs) 19:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Prose is to a very high standard. Very easy to read. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) No MoS issues as far as I can see! Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Formatted correctly. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The references that exist are all local newspapers, books, or other reliable sources. No issues with those. I notice, however, that sections of the article (Government, Transportation, Notable people, groups and organisations, Local media, and Nearby points of interest) are lacking citations that concretely link these things to Seymour. I'd appreciate individual citations for these entries. ☒N There's still a lot that remains uncited here. For the listed features like radio and people, individual citations for each entry that explains their link to Seymour would be very helpful.

    I also see a few bare URLs that I would prefer be correctly labelled. Reference 57, within the world wars section, is also labelled in Spanish, and I'd prefer this be changed to English. ☒N There are still a lot of WP:BURLs that make it difficult to discern what the references mean. These need to be fleshed out with titles and more context.

    		Fail Fail
    (c) (original research) Given the nature of a lot of these references, I am unable to do a comprehensive search of every one. I have spot-checked several references that all match what the article is saying. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) There's a section in the top paragraph of this page which also appears in the article, in the 19th century section. This is not cited in the article. Copyvio detector link checkY I see there's a reference. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article covers the town's history, demography, transportation, geography, etc. in the perfect level of detail. However, I would appreciate a section on the economy of the city. WP:USCITY has some good guidelines on what a section like that should entail. checkY The economy section looks very nice! - I think further details about Seymour's relative geography would be useful. Doesn't need the detail of New York City, but some more info would be great! Fail Fail
    (b) (focused) The article doesn't spend too long on sidetracks. Per SounderBruce's comments and my own reread, I don't think the full list of mayors really belongs on this page. Fail Fail
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    All looks good to me. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No issues here. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are tagged as public domain or CC BY(-SA). Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Images are relevant and captioned correctly. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
On hold On hold If you can resolve the issues I've mentioned with referencing, a missing economy section, and copyvio and then @ping me once you're done, I'd be happy to take another look! ☒N There are still some issues that remain unresolved. If you can fix them, I'll check it out again.

Discussion

[edit]

Hi @Itsjustjody, I've reviewed your GA nomination. If you can take a look through and address what I've found, I'll give it another look. Thank you! -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

awesome. thx. Itsjustjody (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more slight thing, I think the article would benefit immensely from an economy section! You can read about what that should entail at WP:USCITY#Economy. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 21:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done ~~~ Itsjustjody (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I've updated my review. If you can address the remaining problems, I'll give it another look! -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 17:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sure will. I'll have to convert those bare urls into news refeneces. btw, is there any easy way to create a climate section? I tried to create one a long time ago but a got dinged for plagiarism from the weather site I used, so i removed it. Itsjustjody (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's a simple way of doing it as I'm not familiar with American place articles to that level. You could have a poke around some other articles and see how they did it? -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new section on the economy. Itsjustjody (talk)

Hiya @Itsjustjody, if you could provide me a timeframe for when you'll be working on this, I'd be grateful! > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I work on it everyday. Cleaning up the citations will take sometime as it's confusing to me what citations are bad vs. good. I really appreciate the help. Thank you again Itsjustjody (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so, you want a citation that explains the J Otis Adams was born in Seymour, for example? Itsjustjody (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd appreciate citations for every individual person & radio station listed in the lists at the bottom of the article that says why they're connected to the town. Sorry about my slow response, I've been quite busy! @Itsjustjody > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 02:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
will do. taking a few days off to move. I'll be back at it in july. thanks again~~~ Itsjustjody (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be able to continue to commit the time to give this GAN the care it deserves, so I've put it up for a second opinion. If the other reviewer would like to finish the review, I would be grateful! > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 21:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm going to close this as a fail now. There hasn't been any work on sorting the issues since the end of June and as I see it, there are some quite significant issues still to be addressed. The lede, for example, does not summarise the important information in the article and is probably still too short for the length of article. As mentioned, the article is not weighted properly; the geography section is much too short, at least relative to the history section. I'm not too sure why there is a folklore section, this should just be summarised in the history section. There are also lots of sources needed towards the end of the article, an issue which has been pointed out but not addressed. The article still needs plenty of work to be up to GA standard. Willbb234 11:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seymour,_Indiana/GA1&oldid=1171487327"