Talk:Hamilton Hills, Baltimore/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The looks like an interesting article. I have not visited this part of the world but I have a good friend who comes from Baltimore and speaks highly of it. I will, however, remain impartial. I will commence the review shortly. simongraham (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Simongraham: Thank you, I look forward to your suggestions. —Monarchjogs (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Review
[edit]The article is clearly and informatively written and covers a topic ranked high importance. It is stable, 96.5% of authorship is one user, Monarchjogs. It is currently ranked a B class article, assessed on 14 March, but saw substantial development since then.
- The majority of the images are licensed with Creative Commons or marked as Public Domain. The image Good Samaritan Hospital (Baltimore).jpg and Lake Montebello.jpg are copyright and licensed for anyone to use them for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. The image Baltimore-Harford-Road-Southbound-at-White-Avenue-1956.jpg is licensed under fair use, and the rationale states that "The image was created and published by the same author who also holds the rights to the original object, and no alternative depiction could be suitably created." Does this need clarifying?
- Please clarify. "[...] provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed." Do you have any guidance on best practices for this? Should I add the copyright holders' names to the captions in the article?
- I think that would be helpful.
- Done.
- I think that would be helpful.
- Please clarify. For Baltimore-Harford-Road-Southbound-at-White-Avenue-1956.jpg, I haven't been able to find any other public photographs that depict Harford Road in the mid-20th century, particularly in color and showing street cars in traffic with automobiles. Do you have any suggestions on how I could explain this?
- My reading of the license is that it for a images taken of three-dimensional art works, like statues. Is there a more appropriate license that can be used? simongraham (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Updated. You're right, I didn't pick up on that before. I changed the license for the image to Non-free historic image.
- My reading of the license is that it for a images taken of three-dimensional art works, like statues. Is there a more appropriate license that can be used? simongraham (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- Please clarify. "[...] provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed." Do you have any guidance on best practices for this? Should I add the copyright holders' names to the captions in the article?
- There are citations in the infobox. Consider removing these as the data is referenced in the main body in line with WP:INFOBOXREF.
- I removed those from the infobox and added them to the main body.
- Please add a short description (using the template).
- Done. Good idea, I wasn't aware of this template.
- Would it also be worth including a link to the Hamilton disamiguation page?
- Done. I hope I formatted it properly.
- In the lead it is stated that "Today, it is the 8th largest neighborhood by total area in Baltimore." and "As of 2020, the neighborhood was the 5th largest in the city by total population". I suggest the claim only needs to be made once.
- I removed one. These expressed two different facts, one for population and one for area. Were you suggesting I remove one to emphasize the other? I have assumed so for now, removed the one from the geography summary, and replaced it with "Hamilton is sometimes referred to as a part of Harford-Echodale-Perring-Parkway (HEPP), a neighborhood cluster that includes it and other nearby neighborhoods."
- Holcomb 2005 is repeated in the reference section. I suggest adding a Sources section and moving this reference there, then using the sfn tag to create inline citations. Please take a look at the other references and see if a similar thing can be done. This is very useful if the citation is a single page in an article or book chapter which covers multiple pages.
- Updated. I hope the new notes and reference look like what you had in mind. I used Template:Sfn as a guide.
- That looks great.
- Updated. I hope the new notes and reference look like what you had in mind. I used Template:Sfn as a guide.
- The references to Baltimore City Public Schools could also be viewed in this way. They can be replaced if there is a relevant and reliable third party source.
- Please clarify. I like this idea but Template:Sfn doesn't seem to cover how to tag different pages on a website. Do you have any suggestions?
- If it is only available as webpages, I think we are stuck with the current format.
- Note: I also viewed articles for a few other places that were recently approved for good article status to see what sources they used for school information. Darnestown, Maryland is one example; it uses the website of the local school district as a primary source. Perhaps that would be okay here as well?
- I am happy to follow the precedent.
- Done, if you agree.
- I am happy to follow the precedent.
- Please clarify. I like this idea but Template:Sfn doesn't seem to cover how to tag different pages on a website. Do you have any suggestions?
- Anderson 2021 is Redfin referencing Redfin. Is there a reliable source as to why this is notable please?
- I replaced the source with an article from The Baltimore Sun that discusses Redfin's rankings.
- Johnson 2021 is a link to a school website and other references are from similar "about us" style pages from Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Hamilton Elementary/Middle School, Hamilton Lauraville Main Street, the Hamilton Hills Neighborhood Association, Woodhome Elementary & Middle School etc. Are there reliable third party sources that could be used instead?
- Johnson 2021: Please clarify. Although this source presents anecdotal evidence, it makes a few claims that I have not seen shared elsewhere (e.g., the postmaster who named the neighborhood). I also cited it on some statements in the History section so the sources wouldn't lean so heavily on Holcomb 2005. This source would be tricky to remove but is that what you would suggest?
- Removed.
- Baltimore Gas and Electric Company: I replaced this with a source from the State of Maryland.
- Hamilton Elementary/Middle School and other schools' websites: I replaced these with references to the School Profiles page on the Baltimore City Public Schools website.
- Hamilton Lauraville Main Street: Please clarify. The organization provides the only documentation I can find about their activities. It is a part of the Baltimore Main Streets program source, but that site does not describe specific activities for the Hamilton Lauraville Main Street organization. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed?
- Please review. I'll argue that this source is reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF. The organization and their website function under the purview of the City of Baltimore, so I would consider their content about Hamilton's culture appropriate. Please let me know if you disagree.
- Hamilton Hills Neighborhood Association: Please clarify. The Baltimore City Council's website (source) mentions the association as a representative organization in its district. It does not have the correct URL for the organization's website. Should I use that as an additional source for statements where I cite the organization's website? No other source I can find has language about the neighborhood's boundaries or the organization's activities.
- Please review. I trimmed the references to this source down to two, both of which are supported by other sources. I also revised the related language to be as lean and factual as possible. I'll argue that the source is reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF.
- That looks fine.
- Please review. I trimmed the references to this source down to two, both of which are supported by other sources. I also revised the related language to be as lean and factual as possible. I'll argue that the source is reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF.
- As long as these are reliable sources, this will meet the GA criteria. Can you confirm that they are please?
- Johnson 2021: Please clarify. Although this source presents anecdotal evidence, it makes a few claims that I have not seen shared elsewhere (e.g., the postmaster who named the neighborhood). I also cited it on some statements in the History section so the sources wouldn't lean so heavily on Holcomb 2005. This source would be tricky to remove but is that what you would suggest?
- The Baltimore Sun in Scarborough 1932, Rasmussen, 1997, Williams, 1987 etc should be italicised.
- Updated. I used a search and replace function to make all references to The Baltimore Sun consistent in this way.
- There is a citation that links to Congressman John Sarbanes's own "about us". Is this reliable or is there a third party source we can use.
- I replaced this source with one from the State of Maryland. I also replaced the source for Representative Mfume with one from the State of Maryland.
- Are bmore, btco.net, Facebook, randymajors.org and trulia reliable sources?
- bmore: Please clarify. I'm not sure which source you've referred to here. I shortened "Baltimore" to "bmore" in many ref names. Could you provide a full ref name?
- It is Dash 2021, which is published on BmoreMedia.
- I replaced this source with an article from The Baltimore Sun. I also removed the reference to IMDb.
- It is Dash 2021, which is published on BmoreMedia.
- btco.net: Removed. This was one of two sources I used to document the end of electric rail service to Hamilton in 1956. I've opted to leave the other source (Holcomb 2005) on its own.
- Facebook: Please clarify. I believe you're referring to the source for the statement "As of 2021, one active group created for gardeners in the Hamilton-Lauraville area on Facebook had over 1,000 members." I'm not aware of any way to document gardening in the Hamilton area other than to cite this Facebook group. I don't think it's been covered by the local media, at least not recently. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed?
- That is it. Facebook is not generally considered a reliable source, which is a criteria for a GA.
- Please review. I think the source is appropriate per the criteria at WP:SELFSOURCE. If you disagree then let me know. I'd need to remove the language about gardening from the Culture section in that case.
- That looks fine.
- Please review. I think the source is appropriate per the criteria at WP:SELFSOURCE. If you disagree then let me know. I'd need to remove the language about gardening from the Culture section in that case.
- That is it. Facebook is not generally considered a reliable source, which is a criteria for a GA.
- randymajors.org: Please clarify. This was the only resource I've found to obtain local elevation info. I cannot attest to how accurate the site's methodology is. The range I found on the site for Hamilton falls within the highest and lowest elevations that the Maryland Geologic Survey lists for all of Baltimore City (source). I suppose I would need to remove the statement about elevation without data from randymajors.org to support it. Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed?
- I replaced this source with one from the Maryland Geological Survey.
- trulia: I removed this with the section about the Christopher neighborhood (see below).
- bmore: Please clarify. I'm not sure which source you've referred to here. I shortened "Baltimore" to "bmore" in many ref names. Could you provide a full ref name?
- Short 2006 is an incomplete reference that is formatted differently. Please add the missing data and make it consistent.
- Corrected.
- The section Christopher neighbourhood is short and could be redundant. Can you please clarify why this is notable and what "Its residents are now represented among the rest of Hamilton" means.
- I removed the section. Christopher is notable from a historical perspective because it had its own neighborhood association in the late 20th century. Most residents now consider it part of Hamilton as far as I know, though I cannot find any third-party documentation to support that claim. I have removed the section for now and may add it again if I can better document its importance.
- In the section on schools, the schools have designations PK–8, PK–5 and 9–12. I guess these are the grades but is it possible to explain this somehow.
- I added new sentences and explained these.
- "both physically located in Hamilton but are not zoned for the area's students" is uncited. Please can you add a relevant citation.
- I revised the wording of the section following on your feedback.
@Monarchjogs: This is a very well written article. Well done. Please ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Thank you for putting so much time into your review. You've really helped me to improve the article. I have added my comments above and could use more clarification where indicated. —Monarchjogs (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Monarchjogs: You are very welcome. Thank you for your work here. Please take a look at my comments. If anything is unclear, please do ping me. I suggest that WP:RELIABLE could be worth a look if you have read it before, or like me, not read it for some time and you want to read a better explanation of what is needed for a reference written by people a lot more erudite than I. simongraham (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Thanks for linking to WP:RELIABLE, that helped. I think I narrowed your suggestions above down to three reliable source reviews. If it helps, the ref names you can search for are "fb-hlgc" (1 use), "hlms-about" and "hlms-events" (6 total uses), and "hhna" (2 uses). Feel free to point out anything else from your list that I have not yet resolved. —Monarchjogs (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Monarchjogs: That looks great. I will start the assessment. simongraham (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: Thanks for linking to WP:RELIABLE, that helped. I think I narrowed your suggestions above down to three reliable source reviews. If it helps, the ref names you can search for are "fb-hlgc" (1 use), "hlms-about" and "hlms-events" (6 total uses), and "hhna" (2 uses). Feel free to point out anything else from your list that I have not yet resolved. —Monarchjogs (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Monarchjogs: You are very welcome. Thank you for your work here. Please take a look at my comments. If anything is unclear, please do ping me. I suggest that WP:RELIABLE could be worth a look if you have read it before, or like me, not read it for some time and you want to read a better explanation of what is needed for a reference written by people a lot more erudite than I. simongraham (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]The six good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- It is factually accurate and verifiable
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- it contains no original research;
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It is broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
- it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
- It has a neutral point of view
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.