Talk:Huletts Landing, New York/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Good work for the most part. I do have a few concerns, however, so I'm putting the article on hold to allow for them to be fixed. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Add en dashes to the year ranges in the history section. Also, add a conversion for acres in the last paragraph of the same section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Add a paragraph of climate information to the geography section. Nothing substantial, just the record high, record low, average rain, etc.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Looks like all of my concerns were addressed. The article passes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having serious doubts and concerns whether this article meets the GA criteria. It seems to lack a lot in the "completeness" department. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This a hamlet, Dr.Cash, it hardly has info in the first place. Do you expect [the same] info to exist for every single one of these? Mitch 32(UP) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Derek, this article is about a very small community smaller than a village. The reliable sources are rather scarce. Durova Charge! 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be this belief that if an article is incomplete because of a lack of reliable sources, then somehow this allows editors to circumvent GA criteria. I just don't believe that to be the case. Not every article deserves to be promoted simply because it doesn't have any egregious errors. Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)