Talk:Willimantic, Connecticut/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 01:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox summary of population gives a different number (for a different year) than the "demographics" section. The Windham Textile and History Museum is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else. The lead should summarize the content, not provide new information.
Name section is entirely unsourced
Early history section is almost entirely unsourced. The first sourced claim in the paragraph, "was the first in the world to use electric lighting", appears to copy the same wording as its source.
First paragraph of city history is entirely unsourced.
The last paragraph of later history is sourced to promotional web sites seeking donations rather than reliable sources, and writes about projects proposed but not built several years ago as if they are still happening.
The gallery section violates WP:NOTGALLERY
Most of the demographics section is unsourced.
Much of the notable places section is unsourced, and many entries such as the prospect hill one are promotionally worded.
In the notable events section, some text appears to be both highly promotional and copied directly from willimanticstreetfest.com
Infrastructure section is almost entirely unsourced and looks more like an outline for an article than an article.
Media section is again unsourced and outline-like.
The notable people section is completely unsourced and includes at least one WP:BLP violation (a redlinked claim of someone modeling for Playboy with no source).
In the references section, several references are either bare urls or have so little description of the reference that they might as well be bare urls. At least one appears to be an open forum, not allowed as a reference.

I conclude that this is very far from meeting the reliable sourcing (criterion 2) and neutrality (criterion 4) conditions for good articles, and has significant problems in other areas as well. As such it meets WP:GACR quick fail criterion 1, "It is a long way from meeting any one [in this case two] of the six good article criteria." —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time and effort! This is an excellent worklist, and I'll see what I can do to address it! grendel|khan 05:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the issues raised, and started a new nomination. (Diffs here). grendel|khan 01:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]