Talk:Wilkins Peak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Wilkins Peak has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles 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 reassessment.
May 8, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is part of WikiProject Wyoming, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wyoming.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Mountains
 This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance to WikiProject Mountains on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] Good Article review

This article is off to a decent start, but it will need some work before it's ready for Good Article status. I did some copyediting, but I have a few concerns remaining:

  1. The article contains no information on the mountain itself (I'm not sure whether to call it topography or geology, but you get the idea). In order to be considered broad in coverage (one of the GA criteria), it needs more than a discussion of the towers on the mountain. I recommend looking at similar articles that have been promoted to GA level to see what is needed.
  2. The lists would work better as prose. Currently, half of the article consists of point-form lists. In order to be considered well-written, prose is preferable. It might be a good idea to mention what each of the stations is (eg. what type of music they play). If necessary, the Radio uses and Television stations sections could be combined.
  3. The "Accessing the peak" section is unreferenced and currently appears to be original research. If it is going to stay, it should be referenced.
  4. The References section needs to contain more information about the sources. The minimum requirement is title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If the date or author are given, they should be included as well. I strongly recommend using a {{cite web}} template.
  5. There are problems with the lead section. It is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. However, I find that it consists almost exclusively of information that is not mentioned in the article and that the article consists almost entirely of information not mentioned in the lead.
  6. The image captions should say that they are of towers, not radio stations themselves ("The remains of KUWZ, still present in 2005." should be "The remains of the KUWZ tower, still present in 2005"). Please also note that image captions should only end with periods if the caption is a complete sentence.

I don't know if this can be done in a week. I feel that the article needs more information before it is ready for promotion, and there is some fairly major editing and referencing that needs to be done. I'll put it on hold to see how things go. I will keep the article on my watchlist so that I can check on the progress. If my concerns are addressed and the article can be expanded and sourced so that it is broad in coverage and verifiable, I will look it over again to make sure it is ready for promotion. It's a big job, but I hope that it can be done. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand what you mean and I'll work on this article as best I can. Thanks so much for the review, I really appreciate your help.Milonica (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion for the Goelogy section: A search at [1] gives many results that would be helpful in expanding the section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have added another reference via that website. This has really expanded my knowledge of the peak, and I hope this article can become part of the GA family. Thanks again! Milonica (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Eight days have passed, and several of my concerns remain. I am going to fail this nomination, but I hope that my suggestions are useful for future improvements to the article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the article failed and I have no problems with that. What sort of concerns remain? Milonica (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My GA Review of this article

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • I fixed any issues I had with the article
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.
  • Good
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  • Good
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  • Good
  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • No prior issues
  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]
  • Seven images, all in good standing

[edit] Conclusion

I will pass this article to GA. I made changes to the issues I had with the article. For future improvement, I might try to find more categories to add to article; other than that, great work! Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)