Talk:Hastings, Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
Good articles Hastings, Ontario has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Hastings, Ontario has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The article being discussed here is a nominee for Canadian collaboration of the week. If you wish to add your vote on it, please go to WP:CCOTW.

Contents

[edit] Former Good Article nomination

Sorry, but I have to fail this as a Good Article candidate. Please see Wikipedia:What is a good article? The criteria the article does not yet pass include (but may not be limited to):

  • 1(a) "it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers" - The writing is certainly comprehensible, but I would not consider it "compelling", especially based on how many one-sentence paragraphs (and, in some cases, one-sentence subheadings) there are, and based on the abundance of short sentences.
  • 1(b) "it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles)" - The structure makes little sense; history should almost always be at the top (and, in this case, should be expanded), nearby communities should be covered in prose, not a list near the top of the article, "travel distances" is completely unnecessary, and climate should be condensed.
  • 1(c) "it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline" - The list guideline should be studied, especially in relation to the temperature/precipitation information.
  • 2(a),(b),(c) "it provides references to any and all sources used for its material; (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required; (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources" - There is no referencing whatsoever, no inline citations, and some of the sources are unnecessary (i.e. MapQuest for distances between Hastings and other towns).
  • 3(b) "it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia)" - As explained above, this article has little focus. It might be as full of unnecessary details as necessary ones, from much of the climate data (though some is certainly acceptable and encouraged) to the advertisement for Elmhirst's Resort.
  • 5 "It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars." - There are certainly no edit wars, but much of the content has been added in the past four days, so the article has been changing frequently.
  • While 6 is not explicitly violated, the inclusion of an image of Denver, Colorado simply does not make sense.

I would love to see this article become an excellent article someday, and I think could be, but not before a considerable amount of work is done. -- Kicking222 02:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Artcle nomination-comments

I honestly think it doesn't meed GA standards, but I'm going to list some issues instead o failing it:

  • Demographics section: unnecessary bolding, would look better in prose than as list
  • Local Media section: avoid inline external links; if the items listed do not have a wikiarticle, it's probably not worth to have external linkseither; in any case, use Inline Citation rather than inline external links
  • Too many lists with little reading appeal, such as the Temperature, Precipitation, Local Media section
  • The Fowlds Family section: start by explaining why it is important to the subject of the article
  • History section: not fluent enough, does not give a sense of timeline; explain what a "Lock" is, and how it is related the article subject
  • Image:Trenthillscouncil.jpeg has insufficient/questionable copyright explanations. It looks skewed, to.
  • Image:Hasondt.jpg looks unimpressive in plain thumb mode; same copyright issues as above.
  • Economy & Tourism section: inline external links, with "click here" and "further information" instructions, that's not encyclopedic, nor does it floow WP:MOS.
  • Climate section: starts by talking about Ontario in general, and does so for three paragraphs; it should focus on Hastings instead
  • References: use Inline Citation, refs section should be before ext lnks section. (remove inline external link from lead paragraph especially).
  • Avoid weasel words: many statements use vague terms.

--Qyd 17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My General Explanation

Thank you for your opinions. I appreciate it.

I've done a bit of work on the article, mostly minor corrections. As you may know, Hastings is a small village, and is not well known. It is quite difficult to find articles regarding Hastings -- and I don't mean on Wikipedia, I mean on the Internet in general. To everyone - keep this in mind.

Regarding the Comments now - I have done some work, but I don't think the format is in need of extreme work. Re: the media comment especially, There are no articles regarding the Village of Hastings, or really anything about it except for this one. I think I should keep the external links, but thanks for the input.

  • I will condense the climate section, and make it less general and more focused on Hastings.
  • I have corrected the History and Fowlds Family sections as well as necessary, there really isn't any history on the Internet that I can add, though.
  • The Council image is not "skewed". But if it is a violation of any sort, I am more than happy to remove it promptly.

I will be making some other minor corrections. But could you give an example of where I used "weasel words"? Dhastings 23:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely there would be articles in local newspapers and local history books that you could use as sources? You might want to try your library. MLilburne 12:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't live in Hastings, I have relatives there, and I am there quite often. I couldn't really get the chance to search around the library for records though. Dhastings 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former GA failed

As of 8 November 2006, per WP:WIAGA, I failed this article for the following issues:

  • (2.b) - this is my major concern. This article does not have inline citation that is hard to verify it. Please read WP:CITE for how to make inline citations.
  • (1.c) - I found several glares of WP:MOS violations:
    • Start the article with images aligned on the right.
    • There are too many external links. Per WP:EL, do not make ext. links that promote a site, esp. for commercial sites. Why do you need to make ext. links of the same commercial sites more than once? It is considered as external spam linking.
    • Several sections are still stubby, need more expansions.
    • There are still orphaned sentences and list items.
    • Remove words that sound promoting. For instances, popular tourist attractions, part of the famous and picturesque, etc.
  • (3.a) - The article is not broad enough, and currently looked like a travel brochure. Most of the article only points locations, bus routes, trailer parks, list of newspapers, radio stations, some external links to resort areas, etc. This is not an encyclopaedic item. Perhaps it is suitable for Wikitravel articles.

Conclusion: this article is failed for Good Article status. Editors may look onto similar other Good Articles to see how GA article should look like. When the above issues are resolved, this article can be renominated back. If you feel disagree with my reviews above, then you are always be welcomed to ask for re-review in WP:GA/R. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 11:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Failed GA

There are still no inline citations! Read Wikipedia:Footnotes and WP:WIAGA. Please make an effort to address previous reviews before renominating (and don't renominate after a couple of days). CloudNine 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Failed GA- again

Honestly, I'm quite disappointed that this was nominated for Good Article status for the fifth or sixth time. This article should not be renominated for quite awhile. As it is, there are still multiple persistent problems, as per WP:WIAGA:

  • 1- well-written: There are tons of phrases which need to be changed, such as "The Fowlds Family influenced the village of Hastings a great deal in its early history" (from "The Fowlds family"- also decide whether "family" should be capitalized or not), repitition of the phrase "vast majority" in "Demographics", "There is also a high school in nearby Norwood; the Norwood District High School." (this sentence basically states: there's a high school in town X called X High School), and "...life returns to the area, in the form of plants and animals" (from "Climate"). The entire "Location & Transportation" should go, as people don't need to know how exactly to drive from anywhere to anywhere else; Wikipedia isn't WikiTravel. The section headings have Manual of Style problems in relation to capitalization. "Economy & Tourism" still sounds like advertising.
  • 2(a)- references: Many sources are still unsourced. For example: "There are plans under consideration for a new shopping plaza to be built downtown." (from "Economy & Tourism"); "...making Hastings a central hub for tourists in the region." (from "Location & Transportation); the entire "Climate" section.
  • 2(b)- citations: The first citation (regarding weather info) is broken; without it, an entire section of the text is completely unverifiable. The third citation, from hastingsvillage.ca, only goes to that main site; the citation should point to where specific information can be found.
  • 5- stability: In just the past six hours, much of the article has changed; while the changes were not due to edit wars, they were completely unrelated to splitting/merging, vandalism, or article protection.
  • 6(a)- images: There's no reason for me to believe that Image:GrassCoatedInFrost.jpg is in any way related to Hastings, considering that the photographer lives in England. This is exactly the same as when the article had a photo of a lightning strike in Denver. If the picture was not taken in Hastings, it should be immediately removed.

-- Kicking222 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail (was later passed)

  • Please add a lead section for "media"
  • Plese convert the newspapers subsection into a paragraph
  • Please expand the history, government, and education sections
  • Finally, please introduce more citations.

Feel free to resubmit at WP:GAC once the above is addressed. -- Selmo (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/s/Talk%7EHastings%2C_Ontario_0156.html"