Talk:Bacliff, Texas/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I would expect an article of this length to have 2–3 paragraphs, rather than two sentences.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The "Demographics" section has several paragraphs with no references.
   • A link to the Houston Press article would probably be a good thing, too.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   It's a nice, well-written article. If the referencing in the "Demographics" section can be straightened out and the lead section beefed up, I see no problem with this article passing. But for now, I'm placing it on hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• 1. There are links to the Houston Press article - 1. The page numbers are clickable links, and 2. The article itself is in the external links section. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • My mistake, then. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• 2. I believe the demographics section has a citation - it is to the 2000s census and I believe Rambot or someone similar added it - I'm not sure.
  • Looking at other U.S. place GAs I see that some have citations for all paragraphs, while others don't. I'd prefer to see the 2000 census reference tacked on to the end of each paragraph, but won't hold the article to that standard if others are not. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• 3. Now, I DO need to increase the lead. Lemme think of what to say in the lead :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This article should not have passed GA. It is too short, and does not meet the standards of comprehensiveness per WP:WIAGA. The lead section is too short, and doesn't adequately summarize the article. There are many section missing (e.g. government, culture, transportation). Other sections should be drastically reorganized and rewritten. Move 'cityscape' into the 'geography' section, which is WAY to short for GA-quality. 'Crime' better fits as a subsection under demographics. 'Workforce' needs to be completely overhauled and changed to an 'economy' section. All it is right now is spitting out some rather bland statistics.

It might help to review WP:LEAD for tips on writing a good lead section, as well as WP:USCITY for guidelines on the structure and format of a US city article. For now, I am delisting this and relisting at WP:GAN as on hold. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide specific guidelines at WP:WIAGA that this article does not meet? I can't find a "comprehensiveness" standard there, not do I find any sanction of or requirement that it must meet WP:USCITY guidelines. (If one needs to be a member of a specific WikiProject in order to know these 'hidden' guidelines, then perhaps the WP:GAN page can specify that.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

See criterion #3, "Broad in its coverage". There are too many short sections in the article to pass that criterion (e.g. 'geography and climate', 'economy', 'parks and recreation', not to mention the lead section. Part of said criterion also states, "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", and presently, the article's organization fails that as well -- several sections need to be combined and reorganized, as it appears to me right now that the article is mostly a collection of random facts and not consistently telling the story of this small community. Picking on the 'cityscape' section, for one, it starts out by going into median home prices, and doesn't really say much about the different neighborhoods and how they're organized and interrelated in this community. The use of some of the quotes in that section also seems to slant the article towards a particular point of view, violating WP:NPOV. The section really needs to be completely rewritten, and probably integrated into the 'geography' section anyways.

Granted, the population of the town is small, and some of the guidelines in WP:USCITY may not apply, but a reasonable attempt should still be made at filling in as much as possible, and I can't see that with this article quite yet. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I thought we have determined that Wikiproject guidelines do not apply to the GA criteria. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 17:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding quotes and NPOV, one of the points of the NPOV policy is "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." - In which way do the quotes violate this? I tried to make it clear that these quotes were of opinions and viewpoints of different people in the community. What would be the best way to deal with the quotes? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Also:

1. There is a government section - However please keep in mind Bacliff is unincorporated, so aside from the volunteer fire department there is no local government. Everything is from the county. I am trying to figure out if there is a precinct or something from the county that represents Bacliff.

2. AFAIK there is nothing to say about the transportation - Bacliff has no public transport of any sort. Maybe there could be a section about the use and significance of freeways if there is info about that, but unless I find anything of the sort, there cannot be a transportation section.

3. As for culture, some stuff that I put in the Geography section could be placed in a culture section. I'm not sure, though.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you have simply suggested the lead be expanded slightly, rather than delisting it? –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

See above. I have already answered this question. There is more that this article needs than simply, "fixing up the lead." Dr. Cash (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

After a good copyedit, the article meets all GA criteria, and will be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)