Wikipedia:Peer review/West Point, New York/archive2

West Point, New York


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to GA, but I think it needs some improvement before it goes there, and I'd like an outsider's viewpoint of the article. Thanks, ‍ Relativity  01:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there, will take up your article in a day or two. I need some time to analyse it and see if there is anything I could suggest. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @Szmenderowiecki, thanks a lot. Take as much time as you need :) ‍ Rela  tivity ⚡️ 01:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So I will deploy the standard GA template to see how it fits within it, since you want it to be GA-class:
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Even if I were wrong about all this, compare this article to GAs in Places category and you will see that they are much broader than this one (Culture, Politics, Economy...). Still, you have done a decent job so far, and my opinion is that we shouldn't waste these efforts but just incorporate them elsewhere where it fits better.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * You could use the cvt template to convert from imperial to metric units and the inflation template to convert 1780 pounds to today's value. But otherwise not much to add.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The "Oldest military installation" claim, as suggested here, actually refers to Fort Clinton, which is several kilometres downstream and outside the CDP.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * So the history finishes when the US military academy started in 1802 and that's it? It's 2024 outside, 222 years and nothing at all happened? I'm not saying you should describe the military academy itself, we have an article for that, but I don't believe nothing at all happened. When was the CDP for West Point first created?
 * Why is it called "West Point" in the first place, given that it is a cape pointing east?
 * Is access restricted to West Point if it's a military installation?
 * Not a fan of "Notable people"/"In culture" sections (MOS:POPCULT). I think if they are notable graduates from West Point, List of United States Military Academy alumni is the place to go. If they were born in the CDP area and became famous, that's just not reason enough to have that section. But I may be mistaken.
 * I'd expect something like basic coverage of local economy, maybe some cultural events (particularly if not mentioned in the military academy article) and the like.
 * Also, for what it's worth, I think that if the CDP is coterminous with the military installation, then maybe there really should be a merger of the two articles. I don't see much reason for a separate article for the CDP just because it's a CDP, we can redirect West Point to the USMA article and just integrate relevant passages into it. Which in wikispeak would be that West Point, New York doesn't really have independent notability from United States Military Academy because I don't imagine news articles referring to West Point as a separate thing from the military academy. It isn't even an independent town and it's only a statistical area that the US Census Bureau decided to create. Nobody really covers West Point as a statistical unit. The Mint, for example, is on-site. Transportation could be merged into USMA (location). Education can be easily integrated into USMA as it concerns on-site personnel. Those born at West Point were likely children of on-site personnel or were born in military hospitals.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images generally need WP:ALTTEXT unless purely decorative. Also, Map of West Point, 1780 should be public domain instead of CC BY 2.0 because it is so old.
 * 1) Overall: There are issues with independent notability that I believe disqualify any consideration of GA status. It's not that it's one of the six GA criteria, but a GA cannot exist if the article subject itself is not notable. This is not at all to demean or in any way criticise your work, it's that each CDP has its own article even though most are not really notable. In this case, because the boundaries of the CDP cover the military installation (or so it seems), there is little possibility of writing about anything without touching the topic of West Point military academy, which is a pretty damn good sign that the articles should be merged. Even if it's not explicitly written in WP:GA?, if you ask me, I'd say that non-notable articles should not exist, and as such are automatically ineligible for GA nomination.
 * Images generally need WP:ALTTEXT unless purely decorative. Also, Map of West Point, 1780 should be public domain instead of CC BY 2.0 because it is so old.
 * 1) Overall: There are issues with independent notability that I believe disqualify any consideration of GA status. It's not that it's one of the six GA criteria, but a GA cannot exist if the article subject itself is not notable. This is not at all to demean or in any way criticise your work, it's that each CDP has its own article even though most are not really notable. In this case, because the boundaries of the CDP cover the military installation (or so it seems), there is little possibility of writing about anything without touching the topic of West Point military academy, which is a pretty damn good sign that the articles should be merged. Even if it's not explicitly written in WP:GA?, if you ask me, I'd say that non-notable articles should not exist, and as such are automatically ineligible for GA nomination.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Szmenderowiecki Thanks for the review! Yeah, I definitely felt that the history section wasn't complete at all. The rest of your feedback, though, is definitely helpful, and I'll keep it in mind. Cheers! ‍ Rela  tivity ⚡️ 23:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)