Talk:Hartwick Pines State Park

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 5, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass. The writing is okay. The external links should be more than just a URL though.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Fail. There are no inline citations, and there is no "references" section. If external links are used as references, then they should be in a separate section dedicated to references.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. The article isn't nearly as comprehensive as it should be. It should have thorough coverage of the history (such as inception/gaining park status, opening, and history prior to the park's existence). There is nothing about the geographic or geologic features of the park, or the biology on creatures and fauna. See Yellowstone National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, or Redwood National and State Parks for examples of featured articles on a related topic.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass.
 * 5. Article stability? Pass.
 * 6. Images?: Fail. There is just the one image of the map- an article on a park should have several images.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Wafulz 12:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seriously needs pictures
In addition to the forest, a picture of the chapel in the woods would be very helpful. That feature is not documented in the article at all, and should be. Additionally, there are a lot of activities there. See the article and links at Grayling, Michigan. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Stan
 * Just curious, when you visited, did you take pictures? dm (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hartwick Pines State Park categories
One of our editors has been removing categories. I don't understand why. I worte to him individually, but got no response. If you haven't been there (I have), did you at least read this article? Your category changes are without foundation in fact. Before I revert this again, I thought we should discuss it.7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * I reverted this again. Am taking it to the Discussion page.  7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * I believe you are not aware of this which is where we move the museum categories to the redirect with possibilities. dm (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The three categories are: Museums in Michigan | Industry museums in Michigan | Forestry museums in the United States
 * Should these then be removed?
 * Obviously, I was oblivious to the redirect and its consequences. As to the question of removing the categories, I am sure we can come to consensus.
 * Finally, it is also abundantly clear that dm had reason for his actions, and my use of a revert should not be taken as a personal criticism of him. WP:AGF.  I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding.  We had a failure to communicate.  7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * No offense taken, in fact apologies for looking like a potential vandal on my charge through cleaning up museum cats in all the US states. I'm obviously up to Michigan.  IMHO, I think we should remove all of these and leave the cats in the redirect.  At some point, that museum should be broken into its own article. dm (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, after discussion (and a bit of a wikibreak), I'm cleaning up the cats again, keeping them in the redirect. dm (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)