Talk:Robeson County, North Carolina

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambot (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 July 2003 (UTC)

Not that much larger

North Carolina has 100 counties, and the state has a lot of large counties (including Wake County where the capital is). Robeson isn't that much larger than the rest of the state's larger counties. Elle Bee 14:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Race definitions

Once again, the US government defines White as being of Middle Eastern, European or North African descent. Knock it off! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.196.224.71 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Serious question: According to locals, how does one say Robeson? Is it closer to Row-buh-son, or Rob-uh-son? 45.17.195.157 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Map of Robeson County.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Map of Robeson County.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential sources

• Nagem, Sarah (March 9, 2022). "NC's Border Belt counties will get millions from opioid fund. How should they spend it?". Border Belt Independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy beetle (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Notable people

@DiscoA340: I feel like most of these "Notable people of X place" lists are meandering cruft with an ill-defined scope and of little utility to the reader and do not enhance the understanding of a place. I see here you seem to have limited the list to people born in the county. Many other lists don't limit themselves to that. Lawrence McNeill and Margaret Modlin were born here, but did most of their notable work elsewhere. Richard M. Norment and Malcolm Buie Seawell were born elsewhere but much of their careers took place in Robeson. Why do we favor some over the other for inclusion? (I appreciate the simple criteria of place of birth for inclusion, but it makes for an odd balance of relevance) And at some point, if the county is large enough, a comprehensive list would be dealing with hundreds of people if not thousands of people, which I presume is why Los Angeles County, California does not have such a list. How does knowing that Modlin and McNeill popped out of a womb here enhance the reader's understanding of Robeson County? Why is it not good enough to simply keep that information on their own respective articles? The notable people who's stories are immediately relevant to the history of the county are mentioned in the History section (like Henry Berry Lowry). I know its standard practice for many of these county articles to have such list, but I find them utterly misguided and magnets for promotion of marginal characters (just look at the notable people list at Lumberton, North Carolina). -Indy beetle (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Indy beetle I understand and I'll remove most of the non-historical figures from the list. I don't want to inconvenience you and your work to get this article GA Listed. Also, how close do you think you are to reaching that goal for this article? Thanks and have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't mean to cause too much a fuss about it, it's probably something which will have to be decided upon in a larger discussion. As for this article, I'm making good progress I think. I think the History, Law and Government, Healthcare, Economy, and Culture sections are mostly complete. I might update some of the stats in the Education section and have considered adding a little about crime and law enforcement, probably in the Government section. The main things now are rewriting the Demographics section and rounding out the Geography part. I might split off the highways into a sperate Transportation section and rewrite it in prose, such as at Cape May County, New Jersey. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Indy beetle: Great to hear about the article's progress. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts might be a good place to start on the demographics section but if you need any help, feel free to contact me. DiscoA340 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robeson County, North Carolina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Asheiou (talk · contribs)

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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

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)	Prose had a couple of minor grammatical errors, but I've just gone ahead and fixed them. Overall, quite readable.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No MoS issues that I can see.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Reference section exists and is in the correct format.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Extensive citations to books, local news, and a local encyclopædia. Every claim made is backed up by a citation.	Pass
(c) (original research)	As I live in the UK, I have the GDPR to contend with in fact-checking sources, especially with sites such as nrcolumbus.com simply blocking my access. With other sources being books, I cannot easily access them either. I spotchecked several sources that I could access and everything I can see is backed up correctly.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Couldn't find any copyvio from my own readthrough and Earwig's Copyvio Detector.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article covers everything you'd expect from an article of its nature. It covers the history of the county in great detail.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Everything mentioned is relevant and the article does not get sidetracked.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
Article seems neutral to me.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
The only thing I can see even remotely resembling an edit war in the recent edit history was just a civil disagreement that followed the WP:3RR.	Pass

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)	Images are all fair use, public domain, or copyleft.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images all seem relevant and are captioned correctly.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	All seems good to me! This is a very comprehensive article covering history, demography, economy, culture, and everything else you would expect from an article in an encyclopædia. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 16:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.