Talk:Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeNeighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 20, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
January 30, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
April 10, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review[edit]

Preliminary Review[edit]

Unfortunately, I do not bleieve this article qualifies for GA status at this time. The primary reason is due to the fact that the entire article uses one source but is inadequate as there is no way for readers or editors to find that source given the information provided. Please ensure that all references satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and that all facts presented throughout the article are properly cited.

When the source is properly cited, then I think it can go on for further review. I have placed the article under second opinion to see what others have to say about it. Best, Epicadam (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Davenport Public Library said this and one pamphlet were the only sources of information they had on neighborhoods in the city. Ctjf83Talk 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be some why to identify the source: "Historic Preservation in Davenport, Iowa." Plan and Zoning Commission (December 1985). If not, then like I said on the talk page, editors have no way of verifying material. If it came from a library, then please provide the library's identification data (call number, etc.) Even better, if its available, say where the library got it from; unless they printed it themselves, it came from somewhere, either the Plan and Zoning Commission itself or a government printing office, etc. Best, Epicadam (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
it is just a book in the basement of the library that can't be checked out. So if I go get the call number, and put the library name, is it gonna pass the GA, or still not there yet? Ctjf83Talk 16:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. If it's the only source, then it's the only source. The important part is that somebody else is able to find the source material. I'll review the rest of the article to see if there are any other GA problems while the rest of the reference issues are sorted out. Best, Epicadam (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's been no additional work on the article in a week, I am going to close off the nomination for now, but please renominate for GA status when everything's worked out! Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Determined that Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa does not qualify for GA status on the basis that is essentially a list. Recommended nomination at Featured lists. epicAdam (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The Lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence. Please see WP:LEAD. At present the lead clearly fails this criterion.
    Downtown: Downtown contains the two tallest buildings in the Quad Cities: Never heard of them. Please explain "Quad Cities"
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Two sources are used. One (used for the culf of references) dates from 1985. An updated version published 2005 can be found here. I would suggest that this and other recent city documents and newspaper features could provide more useful information to add to the article.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    A map would be a useful addition to this article
    Each section (and the lead) needs a little more history to place what is said about the modern neighborhoods in context. Reading this I have now idea of when or why Davenport was founded, what were or are its principal industries. There are a few tantalising glimpses but nothing coherent. A small demographics section and some explanation of how the city grew would be helpful. I do realise that this is covered in the main article Davenport, Iowa, but each article needs to stand on its own merits. At the moment this is a stub spun off from the main, with no reason to be considered a good article.
    There is mention of rail station, bus station, the universities, major colleges, port (this is a river city, is it not?), military bases, sports stadia, surely these are part of the neighborhoods? Few of the landmarks are mentioned
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    THis artcile is a long way from GA status, failing on criterion 3 Broad in its coverage. Thee is the beginnings of an interesting article here, but a lot more work is needed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]