Talk:Greenville, North Carolina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greenville, North Carolina article.
Article policies
Good article Greenville, North Carolina was a nominee for Geography and places good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
February 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Changed PAX to i.

Contents

[edit] Air service?

According to the US Airways online timetable, the carrier only serves Charlotte from Greenville, not Philadelphia.

[edit] History?

Not even the Greenville Massacre?

Yeah, without a History section, it's just a tourist guide. Murderbike 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subdivisions

the subdivisions listed on this page are hardly new; Brooke Valley is one of the oldest subdivisions in the county, and Camelot is over 25 years old if not more! This is an odd choice of subdivisions to list, is there any logic to them?

[edit] Good article?

 Greenville, North Carolina is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 13:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on the article and hopefully it gets considered a WP:GA. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

The article's prose appears to be reasonably well written, and from that perspective meets the "well written" criteria of WP:WIAGA. However, the article is not complete, and there are too many very short sections in the article, or missing sections, that the article fails the "completeness" requriement of the Good Article criteria.

  • The geography section is far too short; missing entirely is information on the cityscape (neighborhoods and how they are connected) and weather/climate.
  • The Demographics section has a 'template being considered for deletion' tag in it. The text itself is sufficient, but is nothing more than auto-generated data added by a bot from the 2000 census. It could be expanded with more information about the population, including population history, and more information about where various immigrant communities originated from.
  • Promote the history section. It should be the first section in the article, after the lead. Most city articles look best with the following order: History, Geography, Demographics, Economy.
Merge the 'hurricane floyd' section from its own main section into the history section. It's obviously an important part of the city's history, but shouldn't be in a main section, and belongs with 'history', since it's historical fact.
  • A section on the economy is entirely missing from the article. This should cover the various industries and businesses in the city. Should be more than just a list of corporations.
  • The education section is just a list of schools. More can be said about this. Talk about how the schools are related and include information on the school district(s), total number of students/teachers in the system, any notable schools (governor's schools, or highly ranked schools). Any teachers of the year, other notable education achievements? Include information about the library system here.
Move education closer to the end of the article, and promote the 'culture' and 'sports/recreation' sections.
  • Move 'health care' into a subsection within an 'infrastructure' main section. This section should also have information about other important infrastructure in the town, such as electricity generation and water supply.
  • The 'culture' section looks like a very good start, but it just doesn't seem complete. It sounds like it's missing something? I'm not sure what, but I think more about the local culture and tourist attractions can be included here.
  • The section 'LGBT life in Greenville' is an WP:NPOV violation if included in its own main section, as it adds extra emphasis to a very small aspect of the city's population. It's culturally related, and if mentioned, should probably be included within that section. But usually, individual nightclubs (whether gay or straight), are generally not considered noteworthy enough to be included, and borders on advertisement/spam. The link to this material also does not meet wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, as it looks like mostly a blog site with very little, if any, editorial control.
  • The 'shopping' section is of very little importance, and should be moved into the 'culture' section and greatly reduced. Wikipedia should not advertise the existence of stores and malls, and stores like J.C. Penney, unless their HQ is in the city, is hardly worth a mention. Some shopping centers that might be worthwhile to mention in the article might be a street in town with a lot of historic shops, that has developed through many years.
  • Since there are no real major league, professional sports in this city, it might be better to change the title of the 'sports' section to 'sports and recreation', and add more about the recreational activities available in the city. Are there hiking and nature trails located nearby? What about city parks? Any state parks?
  • 'Transportation' is very short. Seems like it can be expanded. It really just lists, in prose format, the major transportation options available, like highways, without really talking about how they relate to the community. There's no context for where these highways lead to and how they're connected to other cities. What about rail transport?
  • The media section seems ok, although try not to just list radio and television stations. The list of radio stations looks incomplete, with only 3 AM & 3 FM stations. The list of TV stations looks incomplete as well (no ABC or NBC affiliates?). You might want to try talking about the radio & TV as prose, instead of listing, and discuss how this relates to the overall cultural scene. What Nielsen media market is Greenville in, and how does this rank compared to other markets (viewership)? Also, if written very well, the different aspects (print, radio, tv) could be weaved together better into a single main section, without the use of these subsections.
Promote the media section -- move closer to 'culture'.
  • A section on 'government' is completely missing from the article. Probably should appear closer to the end.
  • Move the 'external links' section to the very last section, after 'references'. There's a link to the 'Mapit-US-cityscale' template at the very end of the article that can actually be removed now. These links originally appeared in 'external links', but the link to geographic coordinates now appears at the very top right, as well as in the geography sections, so it's redundant at the end.
  • The 'references' listed need to contain more than just the external link to the source. They should include full citation information: author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved (if it's an online source). This is important, especially for online sources, so that if the URL ever is not accessible, the source is not rendered useless and readers can still verify the content cited.

For additional help, I would recommend looking at WP:LEAD, WP:MOS, and WP:CITE. WikiProject Cities also has a very good guideline for US city articles that you may want to take a look at. Two city articles that are existing GAs are also worth examining: Richmond, Virginia and Flagstaff, Arizona.

Hope this helps! Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)