Template:Did you know nominations/Mountain Grove Campground
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mountain Grove Campground
[edit]
- ... that the newspaper editor James C. Brown stated that the Mountain Grove Campground (map pictured) was "one of the most delightful resorts in Pennsylvania"?
Improved to Good Article status by Jakec (talk). Self nominated at 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
This newly approved GA is long enough and was nominated within the DYK rules. The hook is well referenced and the image is in the public domain, although I think it is a bit wishy-washy for a DYK lead image. I saw no sign of close paraphrasing or other policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I find it a bit hard to believe this passed GA. If nothing else, it doesn't appear to have any information on what camp meetings are, and is very much not welcoming to people who aren't well-seeped in the Methodist culture. It also seems a bit poorly organised. Well-sourced, but I'd have held this one up for more work before letting it pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think your points, Adam, relate to the quality of the GA review. The DYK review is not to the same standards and you need to take these points up with the GA process. We shouldn't delay the DYK reviews because reviewers think they can use that as a lever to encourage editors to do as they want. If the article passes DYK rules then that is all that is required. Encouraging editors to improve is great but they are volunteers. Victuallers (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- If we're going to use GA as a criterion for DYK, then the GA being done correctly has to be part of that criterion. However, I think it has improved, so I'll re-review right now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, it still fails to provide suitable context to make it accessible. And I do want to promote this to DYK, but I don't want to do that without upholding standards. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: Seeing as I already have a several-sentence note defining camp meetings, what more do you want? --Jakob (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't it just be explained in the actual article text? The camp meeting movement is relevant to putting it in context, there's no need to ghettoise it into a note. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden:
Done --Jakob (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden:
- Why can't it just be explained in the actual article text? The camp meeting movement is relevant to putting it in context, there's no need to ghettoise it into a note. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: Seeing as I already have a several-sentence note defining camp meetings, what more do you want? --Jakob (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, it still fails to provide suitable context to make it accessible. And I do want to promote this to DYK, but I don't want to do that without upholding standards. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- If we're going to use GA as a criterion for DYK, then the GA being done correctly has to be part of that criterion. However, I think it has improved, so I'll re-review right now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've rewritten it a bit, and it's now Good to go Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)