Talk:Rosendale (CDP), New York/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * I wanted to give my 2¢ as well. The article overall is very good. The lead leaves me wanting, though:
 * I think an additional paragraph discussing Rosendale today is necessary.
 * Somewhere you need to point out that Rosendale was incorporated as a village. In the current form, you read that it's a hamlet and CDP. Presuming you know what those mean, you know they're different from villages. Then you get to the end of the lead to find out about disincorporation from a status not yet mentioned.
 * The last sentence contains two very unrelated concepts, and the fact that Rosendale hosts many festivals isn't a great detail, unless you want to include it in the new paragraph I mention in #1.
 * A little more detail on the conceptual art detail is necessary if you don't want readers walking away from the lead feeling really confused.
 * Is Rosendale officially called "Rosendale Village", or should this be moved to something more like "Rosendale (CDP), New York"?
 * More generally, the bibliography links to what seem to be randomly chosen books. I find a best practice to be to link only books that have full, free versions hosted online, leaving readers to follow the ISBN or OCLC link themselves if they want more information on those books that aren't hosted freely online. It's that reason I created GBLinks and have been using it where I can. Anyway, nice job with the article. These are all small gripes on my part.  upstate NYer  07:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate UpstateNYer providing additional views. However, his last observation is not Wikipedia policy.  We should include the best sources regardless of whether they are available online.  The reason that ISBN, OCLC or similar numbers are included in the cites is that Wikipedia offers links to libraries and bookstores where printed or microfilm books are available.  In many ways, a printed source is more reliable because it does not change over time and is usually more carefully vetted than are some online sources. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood. I'm not saying remove the citations, just remove links (the |url= field in the cite book template) to books that are not freely available in full. For ones that are, link to where they are hosted. For the rest, the ISBN/OCLC number offers a lengthy list of sources to look at information on the book. Linking directly to Google Books or Amazon, for example, makes WP look like it has a preference when it shouldn't. The preference should be there, however, if the work is available in full for free online, since it supports our free content mission. Clearer?  upstate NYer  17:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I misread your comment. Thank you for the clarification. Racepacket (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I've addressed many of the issues brought up here, with the following exceptions: --Gyrobo (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The source for the creek's crest doesn't specify what it's relative to.
 * I've heard the pickle festival called "Picklefest" and "Rosendale pickle festival" so often that I really don't think there's a single common name.
 * I really don't know if the terminology for FIPS has changed, but I added a ref.
 * I haven't been able to find 2010 census data yet.
 * Should the information on street festivals be moved from Landmarks and events to Modern Rosendale? I was thinking about that.
 * I've been looking for sources to say specifically when the village was incorporated, but I haven't been able to locate that information.
 * The census refers to the place as Rosendale Village, and that's probably a more descriptive name than CDP.
 * I'll work on rewriting the lead.
 * 2010 Census data for the municipal level isn't out yet.  upstate NYer  17:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is less with the 2010 census data as the 2010 CDP boundary. Here in Virginia, we had a number of long standing CDPs change in part as a response to population growth. Can we find out if this CDP was redrawn and if the mountain is now in or out of the boundary? Racepacket (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find a map, but Joppenberg is east of the Rosendale trestle and west of the commercial district pictured, so it's definitely within the historical boundaries of the village. I have no opinion on book linking, but the links I did include had the cited pages available. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know when you are ready for me to do the second reading. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a little more historical data (villages were allowed to incorporated in New York in 1847, Rosendale Village showed up in the 1890 census). When rewording the lead, would it work if I said something along the lines of, "Rosendale was listed as an incorporated village in the 1890 census", without giving a specific date? The village was almost certainly incorporated in the 1880s. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on Ulster County's January 2011 CDP map, I think the City-Data Google Map is accurate, and Joppenberg is definitely within those bounds. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not to open a can of worms, but why does the map label it as "Rosendale Hamlet" while none of the other CDPs carry "hamlet" as a part of their labels? Is it to avoid confusion with the Town of Rosendale? Racepacket (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has to be to avoid confusion with the town, probably because there are so many CDPs nearby. But I've definitely never seen it referred to anywhere as "Rosendale Hamlet". I'll try to get over to the Rosendale Library today and find a better CDP map for the article, and also to find out what I can on when it incorporated (the nearby village of New Paltz incorporated in 1887, so I'm guessing it was around then). --Gyrobo (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I finished rewriting the lead, and I added a lot of information about the town during its transition from an industrial powerhouse to a hippie enclave. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2

 * Article states that the incorporation as a village was possible under a law enacted in 1847, but does not say that the village was incorporated or when it happened. I guess you could not find any Rosendale-specific information.
 * Sadly, I could not find anything on the initial incorporation. You'd think that the articles on disincorporation would say something along the lines of, "after being incorporated for almost 90 years", but no. I couldn't even find a map of the original village's borders. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is "Trip Down The Canal" a poem or book? Please state. Wikilink DeWitt Clinton.
 * I clarified that it's a poem, and if you're referring to DeWitt Clinton, it's not him; just someone with a similar name. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We are very close to finishing this. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)