Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Huletts Landing, New York/1

Huletts Landing, New York edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Keep. Minor improvements have been made, e.g., to the organisation. There is now no support for delisting. WikiProject criteria are not part of the GA criteria. Geometry guy 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was recently promoted, but does not appear to meet the completeness criterion of WP:WIAGA. There are numerous very short sections and poor organization issues. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles do not need to be "complete" for GA, that is an A-class criterion. GAs need to be broad. I think this article mostly stacks up with another GA on a small town, Cullacabardee, Western Australia. For further development of the article, there should be more discussion of the amenities, but I believe the article is sufficiently broad. -Malkinann (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having "short sections" is not a reason to consider delisting an article, especially hours after it was passed. Seriously. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having such "short sections" is an issue with criterion #3 of WP:WIAGA. It's an indication that the editors of the article did not do a very thorough job and have much work to do. I'd rate this article at B-class, probably C-class, at best. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how the WikiProject would rate the article: the only issues for good article status are the GA criteria. This is why I believe the confusion of WikiProject assessments and good article status under the umbrella of "GA-Class" was a big mistake, and I am not alone. Geometry guy 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only section that is particularly short is Tourism, but since this is not Wikitravel I don't find that to be a fault. If anybody thinks it is badly organized, well, the solution is for that person to reorganize it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the above comments: this is one kind of article that GA should recognise. However, I'm a little concerned that most of the article is from a single source (G.T. Kapusinski), and this source is not very independent. I have not seen issues here that are likely to be challenged, but I encourage editors to question the material for possible bias and promotion. Geometry guy 20:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article also doesn't even come close to complying with the guidelines for a US city. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a city. It is a hamlet. But I did notice there is no section on governance (how is it related to Dresden, Washington County, New York, for example?) And are there any public schools? Or private ones? Public transportation? Local library? What else do you think might be added to bring up the rating? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To GeorgeLouis: I'll add the stuff, but it doesn't look good when the hamlet is in better shape than the town it is governed by. To Derek.cashman: GeorgeLouis is right, why are you trying to turn a hamlet (with an unrecorded population) into a city guideline? That is ridiculous.Mitch32^(UP) 11:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a hamlet, it has no government. As far as the town of Dresden is concerned, this place is simply a section of the town. Since this is primarily a resort area, I do not think there are any schools or library here (I could be wrong on this). It does have its own post office so in that sense, demographic data for the ZCTA should probably be added. --Polaron | Talk 14:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's clearly not a U.S. city, so let's not use those guidelines. I'd suggest adding material on governance, if any is available. Additional sources would be useful. Overall, the article is in good shape. Majoreditor (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — It seems no effort has been made to contact the involved editors. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Would be nice if it were longer and had more citations, but it seems broad enough for a GA on a hamlet, all the basic info i would want to know was there.Yobmod (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an example of a reasonably complete and balanced article on a minor subject. The references aren't unreliable and the article is neutral in POV. Majoreditor (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've had another look at the article and agree with Majoreditor's analysis. Even if this were a city, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline, like most WikiProject subpages, has no formal status as a guideline. Their role in GA is purely advisory, representing project norms. In this case, I'm underwhelmed by advice which suggests "Presumably 95% of the people in the city work for a living, what do they do?" Presumably about 20% are under 16, 10% retired, and a nontrivial proportion of the rest are registered unemployed or full-time homemakers. In any case, virtually nothing there has any bearing on the application of the GA criteria to this article and the GA criteria are the only criteria for good article status, not WikiProject ratings. Geometry guy 21:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]