Talk:Above All State Park

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Above All State Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: John Broughton (talk · contribs) 18:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The "History" section is not chronological, as it should be. Sources should only be mentioned where they are important - typically in a controversy; the first "Leary writes" is thus unnecessary. Paragraphs are too long, particularly the second in the "History" section; all the sentences in a paragraphs should have something in common [other than the section heading].	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The lead section is disproportionately too large, at about 20% of the body of the text. It contains details, such as information about graffiti, that do not belong in a summary (see WP:LEAD).	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The final sentence of the body of the article is original research. The writer of that sentence appears to believe that an omission occurred, but has no source to cite regarding this omission. Similarly, the initial phrase in the sentence "Despite a lack of information published by ... " is original research; the writer is commenting on an omission by a potential source.	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a guide. The detailed directions for getting to the park are not suitable for an encyclopedic article, which is intended to be a summary.	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result

Result

Notes

Undetermined

I have doubts that this article can reach GA status simply because I doubt there is enough material to justify a "Good" assessment. There is but a single source (of the 10 cited) that is solely about this particular park, and this low level of notability seems to me to be fairly unsurmountable. There isn't anything wrong with this being a solid "B" class article, after appropriate changes are made (see above).

Discussion

Just a quick drive-by comment, I had similar concerns over length with Farm River State Park, for exactly the same reason. Ultimately, a search for sources myself satisfied that the article was just about long enough to cover the major aspects of a fairly insignificant park that doesn't have a substantial history. I don't think we should "puff up" articles to a certain length, as that may fail the "focused" part of the GA criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - I agree and I'll post more on your talk in a second. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I addressed the issues with directions and the omission - this was actually the first park one I did so it still shows signs of my attempt to curate and compile a broader knowledge of this park. Other fixes were done as well. The article does not have a notability issue - it is a designated state park and it meets WP:GNG anyways. The key problem you are actually seeing is the lack of sources on an obscure state park. Size or depth of detail are not actually issues when all existing sources have been exhausted or "unknowns" stemming from unrecorded or lost data exist on a subject. For example: How Brown Saw the Baseball Game and Katsudō Shashin are very short Featured Articles, and the unknowns in the latter is unresolvable. The year of production, the manufacturer and even its purpose is unknown - but the article represents everything known on the clip. I feel that I have covered the history and the activities of the park that is neither tended or maintained as best I could, but I'll gladly address any information gaps if you can provide any source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• John Broughton - I double checked my State Register and Manual books, 1934 mentions the park size and creation number, but 1933 and 1932 do not cover the parks at all. These are often good for size increase markers because they do not typically get recorded. I checked Newspapers.com which has an extensive archive like Google (for The Day) and got only a redundant hit. Chronicling America is out and ORRRC study report #21 was a mere listing. If you can dig up anything - I'd be pleasantly surprised because Leary's book is the "go-to" for history of the parks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment

I have just contacted reviewer John Broughton on his talk page, and he said "I've made my comments, and I really don't have anything else to add.", so he agreed that I should put the nomination back into the reviewing pool, which I have done. With any luck, a new reviewer will choose this nomination to review in the near future. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Above All State Park/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 10:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• "There are no facilities, toilets, or other markers": a toilet isn't a marker, so this would probably be better as "There are no markers, toilets, or other facilities".

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest identifying Joseph Leary when you mention him -- "historian", for example, if that's appropriate, or just "In his book on Connecticut's state park's, author Joseph Leary" if that's all we know about him.

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Have you consulted Hidden History of Litchfield County by Peter C. Vermilyea? Parts are available on Google Books, and he gives some more detail about the GFA that might be interesting. A text search only finds "Above All" in the section on the GFA so that might be the only relevant material.

Ooh.. released October 19, 2014. Post-dates my article, but does have some good additional info to add. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Vermilyea doesn't include the "(GFA)" in his mention of the cold war installation and it seems pretty clear that that's just an abbreviation for it. Since we don't use the abbreviation later in the article I don't think it needs to be included.

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• "and notes Lake Waramaug State Park, Mount Tom State Park and Dennis Hill State Park respectively": I think you mean something like "and notes that the park is outdone in these respects by ..."; as it stands this sentence doesn't make sense.

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think the order of presentation in the article isn't ideal. Wouldn't it be better to start with the history? The first paragraph of the body talks about the Stone family and some information about the 19th-century, so we're jumping around in time a bit. Something like "The land was farmed in the 18th century [or whenever it was] by the Stone family, who claimed it was [...]; by 1927 it was owned by the Strong family, who gifted the land to the state that year", and so on.

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Any chance of a picture of the bunker? There seem to be a few pictures of it on the web; I don't know if any of them have a suitable license.

• I have not been to the site personally - some of the sources show pictures, but these are not under appropriate license. Image use policy will not allow a non-free image to be used for this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think you need "Bedell and Leary state that" and "Bedell more specifically states that" -- your sources are in the footnote and there's nothing controversial here that needs attribution, except perhaps for the comment about the park having reverted to secrecy, since that's contradicted elsewhere.

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• "and recorded for at least one year": the intransitive use of "recorded" is a bit odd; how about something like "and recorded wind data for at least a year"?

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• What makes "Radomes" a reliable source for our purposes? (I'm not saying it's not, but I don't immediately see much information about its editorial approach on the site.)

• The fact it contains documented photos and access data. Which is pretty sad that such a site offers something that I cannot find and show elsewhere. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The site has also been the subject of graffiti." No need for "also", and "the subject of" isn't quite right -- that would mean that graffiti elsewhere referred to it. I think "vandalized by graffiti" would be more natural.

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• "but notes the radar tower and chain-link fencing are missing": is the subject of "notes" the photos or the Radome website? If the former, it should be "note"; if the latter, the sentence needs to be rewritten to make that clear.

• Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• The infobox says "Unspecified" for "Established", but surely it was established in 1927, per the gift from Seymour Strong's heirs?'

• The only reason why I have not done this is that the state parks have been profoundly impacted in there establish dates with other such gifts.

• If you have access to newspapers.com, there's an article in the 9 December 1927 Bridgeport Telegram about the purchase -- it's just a snippet but it might as well be cited. If you don't have access, I can clip it for you if you like. It refers to the Stanley estate rather than the heirs of Seymour Strong, but perhaps those are the same people.

I have access, but it didn't come up in my search. Could you link it please? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Take a look at this; what's interesting is that this is from a 1915 report. It looks like there was a gift of three acres from the heirs of Seymour Strong, and the purchase from the Stanley estate added to that in 1927. That's in line with the Bridgeport Telegram article.

That Google Ebook is a bundle of reports, if you page up you can see this report containing that information comes from 1928 for the end of the fiscal year. Google does this with quite a few of these reports. I think adding the Stanley estate (if you could provide the link) would be best. I knew it was expanded, but the parcel(s) were unknown to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• This might be too detailed, but this book has some information on expenditures on the park in one particular year.

• You are correct, the fact only one year is really visible and able to be utilized from that snippet is not really a big deal. Some of these parks have very little upkeep and I often think very little of expense reports. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

-- I'll place the article on hold. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Mike Christie: just looking for that link to update the parcel info. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I won't go through and strike individual points above; almost all of it looks good now. I made a couple of copyedits. Newspapers.com seems to be down right now; I will post the link when I can get to it. The rewrite of the first body para isn't quite right. How about changing the last sentence to 'An alternative explanation comes from Connecticut; a Guide to Its Roads, Lore, and People, which says the park is noted for its "woodland trails, excellent views, and a 'top of the world' isolation that explains its name."'? That's the only thing I see left, other than the link, which I'll post when I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the clipping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks, fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)