Talk:Monett, Missouri/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 05:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• The lead is quite short. The history section should be summarized by a paragraph or two.
• The coordinates in the lead need to use {{coord}}
• No citation given for the demonym, which isn't repeated in the body
• First sentence uses "in" too many times
• Being the 83rd most populous city in a state isn't really worth mentioning in the lead
• Merge the population sentences
• Use the un-abbreviated form of I-44 during its first mention

History

• Several paragraphs are completely uncited
• There is no caption for the church image
• The WPA image isn't necessary, as it's hard to see at thumbnail size
• "would build a branch going off" is rather wordy. And where did the branch terminate?
• Link to postmaster (which is one word)
• Break up the quadruple citation at the end of the first paragraph
• "very much noted" by who and for what purpose? I don't think this is necessary.
• Citation for the Fruit Growers building's listing on the NRHP. A year for the listing itself would also be nice.
• Historic buildings should probably be split off into a different subsection, as they don't seem to be from the same eras.
• Is there a more specific date for the start of the race riot?
• No citation for the 2000 population
• The 20th century section seems very thin compared to the previous one. It needs more content.
• No citation for the first paragraph in the 21st century section, which also reads like an advertisement.
• Two sentences beginning with "In 2018", one of which should be removed to avoid repetition.

Geography

• The communities map should be converted to prose or removed entirely
• The section is missing a lot of potential information. What is the town's geological setting like? Are there hills, lakes, rivers, or other prominent landmarks? Where do the city limits begin and end?
• Is the climate data based on information supplied by an actual weather station? Weatherbase is not as reliable of a source as Weather.gov or another government provider.

Demographics

• Paragraphs need in-line citations, even if they are just repeating the census links.
• A description of the population's history, most predominant ethnicity, or other statistics is needed.

Economy

• Citations?
• Please describe the shopping center in a manner that doesn't elevate the Lowe's above any other retailers, or remove the sentence entirely.
• Describe what the "rapid growth" is.
• Link the company names and describe their industries.

Transportation

• The inline highway shields are inappropriate. Spell out the full name of the highways before abbreviating them.
• No citation for the highways section. Even the state map would be fine.
• Describe more about the highways and the airport.
• No citation for the trains section, which should be retitled to "Railroads"
• The train image is missing a caption and is not particularly relevant

Education

• Please describe the school district in a non-list format. Not every school needs to be mentioned by name, but data on pupils, funding, and a founding date would all be nice.
• Same goes for the university and library. When were they built/founded?

Culture

• None of the information here is cited, and it should be rewritten in a non-list format
• Any information on parks, unique festivals, local holidays, and other traditions? This section seems rather thin.

Media

• Please add prose descriptions instead of lists, along with citations

Notable people

• Each entry in this section must be cited with a reliable source.
• Entries without articles (e.g. Jack Henry) do not belong in the list.

Images

• File:Downtown Monett.jpg is missing evidence of permission.

References

• References 13 and 14 do not need long quotes, as they are publicly accessible. The title is also missing from the latter.
• References 3, 8, 9, 17, 18, and 21 are missing publisher, date, and accessdate fields.
• Reference 25, which I presume is pointing to another Wikipedia entry, must be replaced.
• Citation dates in the references need to be harmonized per MOS:DATEFORMAT.

I will get to the other sections later, but so far I don't think this article is anywhere close to GA quality, so I'll be putting it on hold. I highly suggest finding more sources and also requesting a copyedit from GOCE or a local expert. I also suggest looking at other city and town articles that have already passed GA, especially those with a clear structure. SounderBruce 05:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cvanlue25: Please address the full set of issues listed above. SounderBruce 05:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: and @Cvanlue25: I have done some minor changes to the article to help fix some of the issues, but I agree with SounderBruce that this article is nowhere close to GA quality. It is poorly written, contains lists, and has no substantial information in all of its section. A ton of work is needed. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feed back ::@SounderBruce:, and @AmericanAir88:. I understand there are immediate issues and not to the exact quality of a good article, however, it was my intention to draw attention to the page and for users to point out it's flaws. That has been accomplished. This is only a small hobby of mine and I will continue to work on these areas in time, but wanted to have clear direction in fixing this article. ^{User talk:Cvanlue25} 08:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cvanlue25: If you can't commit to fixing these issues in a timely manner, then this nomination will have to be closed. You can re-nominate the article once you are ready. SounderBruce 00:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cvanlue25: Thank you for your honesty. I appreciate that. Do not be discouraged from this article, it has potential. As Bruce said, you can renominate this. Thank you. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of substantial progress after nearly a month, I'm closing this review. Feel free to re-nominate the article once you have addressed the issues laid out in the GA criteria. SounderBruce 21:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)