Talk:Huletts Landing, New York/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Add en dashes to the year ranges in the history section. Also, add a conversion for acres in the last paragraph of the same section.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Add a paragraph of climate information to the geography section. Nothing substantial, just the record high, record low, average rain, etc.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Good work for the most part. I do have a few concerns, however, so I'm putting the article on hold to allow for them to be fixed. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like all of my concerns were addressed. The article passes. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having serious doubts and concerns whether this article meets the GA criteria. It seems to lack a lot in the "completeness" department. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This a hamlet, Dr.Cash, it hardly has info in the first place. Do you expect [the same] info to exist for every single one of these?Mitch32^(UP) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Derek, this article is about a very small community smaller than a village. The reliable sources are rather scarce. Durova^Charge! 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be this belief that if an article is incomplete because of a lack of reliable sources, then somehow this allows editors to circumvent GA criteria. I just don't believe that to be the case. Not every article deserves to be promoted simply because it doesn't have any egregious errors. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]