Talk:Yanceyville, North Carolina/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 23:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Good Article review process, I am going to guide you through this process. From the start, I'd have to note that my first impression is that this article is salvageable for a GA-class candidate but there should be some extensive work done on the article before it gets my approval. For now, please refer to the newly-promoted GA/FA-class articles about cities for the understanding of what is wanted from you. Be aware that older articles may no longer conform to the criteria, as the standards have generally gone up (or at least some editors started enforcing them more, who knows). Anyway, let's start. I will go through specific points later.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead is too short (see MOS:LEDE). Otherwise expansion may be needed in other areas (see below).
I think it should be good now. DiscoA340 (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, much better. I'll do some minor fixes, but now the lead is quite fine.
Thanks! DiscoA340 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Some of the citations are bare (just a link with a title - no mention of whose work is this, when produced etc.)
Done. DiscoA340 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
I am not convinced that simply referring to the page of a local company/medical establishment etc. satisfies GA-class criteria. Sure, it is reliable to say that the company is there but non-independent sources are normally not good enough to support information of encyclopedic significance. I mean, even a short mention in local press should do, so long as the mention is not sponsored/promotional and so on - you get the idea.
I think this one may be good but I'm not 100%. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
The link to the Weather Channel in Climate refers to a collection of weather forecasts and past weather, so it doesn't really suggest anything what the article says.

Update. Weather Spark is acceptable if you can't find anything else, but otherwise look for something better. Not necessarily tailored to Yanceyville, it's enough if you look up Greensboro, which will have much more literature. Twitter post of a weather observer is also not good enough; and since the map source is NOAA data, it should be covered in general literature about weather conditions in North Carolina. The "pleasant" months is still a subjective label and I'd remove it altogether.
I removed the weather channel cite and the word "Pleasant," it should be good. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
a. The Climate section is not good enough (I mean, Koppen classification, some more general patterns about central North Carolina and so on are missing - maybe some tornadoes or hurricanes?). It more or less should be the same as in Raleigh, so look up that section, or any climate section in any decent GA or particularly FA.
Done. DiscoA340 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above.
I did a little tweaking of the section but if it's possible if you could tell me what else to add, that would help, Thanks! DiscoA340 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

b. There is a lot of data in the 2000 census that is not mentioned in the 2020 census. Could you please update to the newest information available (census or ACS?)
I believe it should be good now. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that.

c. The transportation section, to the best extent possible, should be written in prose (OK, we've got the airstrip - does it work? is it freight/recreational only or does it accept passengers? where is the nearest passenger airport? int'l? What is the extent of coverage of public transport (rail, bus etc.)? IMHO it works better in prose.
Done. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Affordable transport services" is promotional language, so remove it; also, it would be good to quote sources for each of the airports, and possibly remove one or two of those that only service general aviation, since Yanceyville already has one.
Removed promotion sounding sentence, I will have to come back to you on removing some of the airports. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I removed Danville Regional from the list. DiscoA340 (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

d. Notable people section is a mess. Please order it, either alphabetically or chronologically.
Done. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
I forgot one thing: you have to provide alt captions to images. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still getting the hang of alt-text but each image now has it. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Waiting for improvements

Do all the fixes look good? DiscoA340 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we are slowly moving forward but that's not it yet. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been substantially changed since my review, and the above points may no longer apply. Unfortunately I cannot vouch for its stability, but anyone ready to review it once again may surely do so. The article will therefore be referred for second review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki, are you only asking if this article meets the stability requirement? If so, in my opinion it does, and if that's enough I would suggest you go ahead and close the review. If you want further input please let me know what you're looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie I need further input given the changes made to the article (i.e. let someone else evaluate it from scratch). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do a review from scratch. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

Images are appropriately tagged.

Earwig finds one issue where the source has too closely paraphrased:
- Source: ...had Yanceyville not been the county seat it would have become a ghost town after the Civil War, being totally abandoned. Because there was no geographic or commercial reason for its existence, it could have disappeared. Without a railroad, a major waterway, or an ability to attract commerce, Yanceyville relied almost exclusively on the agricultural enterprises in the surrounding county, and those businesses, mostly tobacco-based, were at the mercy of markets beyond the county. Slave labor no longer was available, and the land was well worn. Agricultural practices overused the land and allowed the topsoil to erode. Gullies were evident on most farms.
- Article: If Yanceyville had not been the county seat, it likely would have been abandoned as a ghost town after the war's end in 1865...No clear geographic or commercial reason for the town's existence remained other than the purpose of functioning as the county's seat of government. With no railroad, major waterway, or ability to attract commerce, Yanceyville was almost entirely reliant on agricultural enterprises in the surrounding county in the decades following the Civil War. These businesses focused mainly on tobacco and were dominated by markets beyond Caswell County. Agricultural practices in Yanceyville during the antebellum period and thereafter had overused the land and caused soil erosion. Gullies were evident on most farms."
What makes the following reliable sources?
- ncccha.org
- usa.com
- courthouses.co
- worldpopulationreview.com -- the about page says nothing useful about them, and the address they give seems to be just a storage unit.
withinhours.com
blogspot.com is not generally a reliable source. I see you're using it for one of the pictures; I would source that directly to the government website it came from instead.
Flickr is not generally a reliable source. I've clipped the article from the Bee he cites, here, and I would suggest citing that for the same information. If you want to cite anything from Life I would get suggest getting a copy -- someone at WP:RX might be able to help.
There's no consensus on whether Ballotpedia is reliable; see WP:RS/PS for some discussion. If you can find a replacement source that would be best.
Some of the notable people are listed with no source.
A couple of the "See also" items seem rather disconnected from the article topic -- Research Triangle Park, for example -- if that's relevant to Yanceyville, it's relevant to hundreds of small municipalities in the region. I would suggest limiting those only to closely connected articles.
The layout of the infrastructure section seems to have a good deal of unnecessary white space. Describing twelve roads through a town with a population of under 2,000 as "major highways" seems excessive. I would limit the roads to the interstate and the US highways, and I would suggest cutting mention of the Amtrak station as it's not even in the same state (and is currently unsourced). For the rest, I would get rid of the highway logos and subsection headings and make it into a much more readable short text paragraph. I would also combine the "Media" section with the infrastructure, as that's also very short, and I'd eliminate the subsection headings there too.
The "print media" subsection is formatted as a single bullet list instead of prose.
The education section would be better without the subheads, and should be in prose instead of lists.
The list of current council members seems like triva to me. Perhaps just mention the mayor? And some other points mentioned seem rather like trivial factoids -- the fact that there were 28 EF 2.0 tornadoes between 1950 and 2010, for example
There's an uncited sentence in the "History" section.
I think

Spotchecks:

FN 40 cites "Yanceyville benefits from its proximity to Danville, Virginia, the greater Piedmont Triad area, and the Research Triangle. Residents have access to a wide range of goods, services, attractions, and employment in the region." The cited source simply lists some places nearby without saying Yanceyville benefits or anything about the benefit to residents. In any case I think this is a bit off topic -- the article is about Yanceyville itself.
FN 39 cites "NC Cooperative Extension's office in Yanceyville connects local farmers and agribusinesses with vital research-based information and technology". The linked page covers this only in the most general way; something more specific is needed, and "vital" should be cut as non-neutral.
FN 35 cites "CoSquare, a coworking space that offers several business possibilities for entrepreneurs, is located in the downtown historic area". The source has "...is making history as the county's first co-working space. It provides several different business possibilities at an affordable price for entrepreneurs...". This is just a bit too close to the original wording. It also doesn't say the downtown area is historic; I don't think it's a big deal because that's covered elsewhere but I'd cut the word here. It's not clear from the wording in the article that this is a county government project, which I think is relevant.
FNs 17 & 18 cite "Construction on the preceding historic courthouse began in 1858 during the tail end of the area's prosperous "Boom Era." Built using enslaved labor, it was completed in 1861 amid the early stages of the American Civil War." I can't see anything in either source about a "Boom Era", nor do I see support for the dates -- if the sources are reliable he was designing it in 1858 and still building it in 1861 but it's not clear building work began in 1858 or that it was completed in 1861.

I'm going to fail this. None of the spotchecks came back without a query, and overall there's too much listed above to be addressed at GA, particularly with regard to sourcing, and if much of the sourcing has to be removed the article might change significantly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]