Talk:Mountain Grove Campground

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mountain Grove Campground/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whilom (talk · contribs) 07:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC) The information presented is detailed and cogent, however the numerous grammatical problems and tendency towards short declarative sentences make it difficult to read. I recommend the nomination be put on hold until the involved editors clean up the prose. I'm not often a reviewer so I don't know how to put the nomination on hold and encourage someone else to do so. Whilom Chime (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@Whilom: I've done some copyediting. Can we proceed with the review? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Article placed on hold per request. If wanting a second opinion or a check through, just ping me with {{ping|ChrisGualtieri}} or message me on my talk page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This Article's looking better, but there remain grammar usage issues: should be "designed *with* a layout" not "designed in a layout," "on the site that would become" not "on the site that would become the site of the," "the campground received an unusually large advertisement" should be "the campground placed an unusually large advertisement" or if the ad was actually a gift perhaps "the campground had the benefit of an unusually large advertisement...." There are many more; I'm all for diversity in grammatical style but clarity is important. I would be happy to make specific suggestions but don't want to step on the toes of the page's usual editors. Other than that, there are only a few specifics I would mention: I can't find any indication that Mountain Grove is currently a town in PA, so some reference substantiating that it once existed and wording like "near the historical town of Mountain Grove" would be good, the links bell might be bell, religious speakers might be religious speakers, and special train should probably be special train. The links employees and employers should probably be employees and employers respectively. But I want to be clear, I think this article contains exactly the right amount of information, well referenced, and presented well above average for Wikipedia; lots of good work here, and definitely worth a GA certification modulo the minor tweaks! Whilom Chime (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your further feedback. I've done some copyediting. BTW, if you want to list specific suggestions, go ahead. I'm the only regular editor of this article. --Jakob (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• @ChrisGualtieri: Would you mind continuing the review since you volunteered to do so and User:Whilom hasn't edited in over a week? Thanks. --Jakob (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, looking it over, but the first thing that stands out is " Craig A. Newton, Up at Mountain Grove" - what is this publication, what is the author's details and why is it important for "The camp meeting" section? Has also issues with words to watch. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• @ChrisGualtieri: I've fixed the reference. Is there a specific subsection of WP:WTW than is relevant in the case of this article? --Jakob (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Relative time references "typically began at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday night". "Following the increase in the length of the camp meeting to 13 days, the schedule was adjusted." When was this?

• "The Mountain Grove Camp Meeting Association added Chautauqua Day to the camp meeting in 1885. It occurred on the first Thursday of the meeting. A number of people, including Lyman Abbot, frequented the Chautauqua Days as a speaker. The Chautauqua Day was highly popular." Choppy sentences.
• "camp meeting at the Mountain Grove Campground was held for seven to ten days each August." - Capitalize camp at the start of the sentence.
• " Typically, several thousand people would attend the camp each year." Generalization, and "typical" again.
• "Between 1875 and 1890, a large number of people tended to stay at the camp for its entire duration." is unspecific and meaningless
• "In the later years of the campground, its visitors were mostly employees rather than employers." - What?
• "The ratio of those staing for the whole time of the camp meeting to those staying for part of the time also decreased during the 1890s." Wording and typo.
• " At least one person from Benton, Columbia County is known to have attended a camp meeting at Mountain Grove Campground" How is that relevant or noteworthy?

To be fair the entire article needs a thorough copy edit and more concrete specifics for events instead of just vague generalizations without hard numbers or dates. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have copyedited the article. --Jakob (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why this shouldn't be a GA now. All the issues I see were fixed, but I have been pretty busy as of late. The copy edit seems to have fixed the issues I pointed out previously to a reasonable satisfaction. I know it doesn't have to be under the 1A criteria and that's where I tend to go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: So it can be passed now? --Jakob (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe it should be, but is Whilom still active or going to? As the formal reviewer, I am not sure how best to respond to the situation. I'd personally pass it now, but if Whilom is going to be absent, I think I could technically pass it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Well...Whilom hasn't edited at all in six weeks. --Jakob (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I passed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Section title

I'm a bit shocked this passed GA: While certainly a well-researched article, it fails to define what a camp meeting is, and I don't think the order of sections has a clear structure. It certainly doesn't need a lot of work, but it does need a little bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I've switched a couple of sections around. It's not easy because there doesn't seem to be any standard layout for such articles. I've also added a note to compliment the camp meeting wikilink in the first sentence. Hopefully, that'll be sufficient. --Jakob (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks better, but maybe one paragraph putting the idea of camp meetings in context? They're largely not done anymore, so a brief summary of the linked article wouldn't go amiss.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Further context has been added in the notes section. --Jakob (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

ping --Jakob (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)