Talk:Livermore, Pennsylvania/GA1

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

This article has substantial problems. I don't want to put a road block to GA but I would not grant it, in my opinion. To be nice, I will not formally reject it so somebody else can approve it. I don't have anything against grade inflation but won't do it myself. Good luck.

Focus more on the town and how it was when it existed. Any photos of the town instead of just some water? Spevw (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to provide GA review for this article. H1nkles (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

Regarding Lead

 * Per WP:LEAD your lead should be a summary of all the subjects of the article. Your lead is too brief.  It does not mention the urban legends or hauntings that surround the town.  This should be mentioned.  You should also discuss the founding of the town, which is in the article but not mentioned in the lead.  I know that the article is short and as such the lead will also be short but it should cover the main points in the article.  H1nkles (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding History

 * You have several paragraphs in this section with lots of facts and one in-line citation at the end of the paragraph. You should put in-line citations after the primary facts in the paragraph.  As it currently stands the reader is left to assume that all the facts are found in the one source at the end of the paragraph.  I'm not advocating a cite after every sentence but for the primary facts in the paragraph there should be an in-line citation.  That is reasonable and adds credibility.
 * The Johnstown flood of 1889 paragraph is a one-sentence stub. This should be expanded or combined with another paragraph.
 * Quote, "Since completion in 1952, the Conemaugh River Dam has prevented over $2 billion in damage." This sentence needs to be cited.  H1nkles (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Demographics
This section is fine, a bit too detailed but it does add to the article and helps the reader to see why the town was eventually condemned. H1nkles (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Today

 * This section is ok, purely speculative but such is a nature of hauntings and urband legends.
 * What does concern me is that two of your citations, #'s 12 and 13 contradict each other. #12 says the cemetary scene wasn't filmed in Livermore, while #13 says it was.  Also citation #13 is really just a travel guide listing, not very credible.  H1nkles (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

 * For the most part your citations are credible, formatted correctly and the links are good. Accessdates are current as well.
 * You need to do something about the contradictions between cite 12 and 13. H1nkles (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall comments

 * See my previous concerns. The article is very short.  There may not be enough information available to adequately cover the subject.  Things to address would be what was the primary livelyhood of the residents?  Perhaps a background on the founder of the town.  These are just some suggestions.  If there just isn't more information available then that really isn't the editor's fault but I still can't say that it adequately covers the subject per GA guidelines.
 * In-line citations need to be improved.
 * I agree with the previous reviewer's comments about the photos. Two shots of a river with some barren trees is hardly descriptive nor does it really add much to the article.  Old lithographs of the town should be somewhere in an archive.  Scan them in, they'll be over 100 years old and will pass copyright guidelines for use.  Since there is so much emphasis on the cemetary there should be a photo of that somewhere that could be used.
 * The writing is ok, spelling and prose are fine. References are good.
 * At this point the article needs some expansion and significant work. I can hold it for a week, so I will now release it back into the hands of editors, I will review it for final GA determination on 2/2/09.  Thank you.  H1nkles (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)