Talk:Caswell County, North Carolina/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 05:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Will review in the coming days, but what stands out initially is the lack of prose in some sections that are all list. Those need to be converted. SounderBruce 05:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi SounderBruce, this is just a reminder. It's been 2 months since anyone said anything. Are you still planning to review this? Sparkl^talk 16:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I should be able to get around to this soon. Have had a busy few weeks. SounderBruce 02:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not the reviewer but a member of WikiProject NC. The article has some serious issues:
  • The lede is not sufficient, as per the relevant MOS, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points. I don't think the current short lede adequately meets this.
  • The History section is a hodgepodge. Sentence pairs need to be consolidated into coherent paragraphs. Some of the information, particularly with regards to the Civil War and Reconstruction, pertains more to the history of the state than the history of the county, and should summarized in such a way that best relates what is necessary to tell the history of this county. Some info (like the fact that 34 Caswell men were assigned to slave patrols during the war) might be too specific and should be summarized more concisely. There also seems to be some WP:Original research issues with reliance on primary sources. The claim about telephone service being extended to Yanceyville and Semora is supported by a Slate article talking about a Bellsouth map from the early 1900s (the article itself does not discuss Caswell, these claims are essentially being supported by a 1910 company map, which is a primary source). Claims about lost 1860s court records making historical research difficult are not sourced seem to be pure conjecture. The discussion of slaves being freed is sourced directly to the Emancipation Proclamation (primary). The claim about slaves likely fleeing Caswell after 1863 is not supported by the given source, which is an article that doesn't even mention Caswell. Discussions about slave/black population stats are sourced directly to US Censuses and are intermingled with articles talking about Reconstruction broadly, not in Caswell; cobbled together that is all WP:SYNTH. The "Political leaders" subsection seems to be a collection of Trivia. There are several instances where there are no sources cited to support statements and I have tagged them accordingly.
  • Much of the Geography is unsourced bulleted lists. Who says what a "Major" body of water is as opposed to a minor one? Most of the bodies of water are sourced to northcarolina.hometownlocator.com, which is at best a primary source, if not evidence of even more contrived OR.
  • The Infrastructure section is largely unsourced, and I don't see why it is important to know that you can get AT&T coverage out there. The airports also seem irrelevant aside from the one that's actually in the county (Do we have a source saying that the Alamance regional airport is relevant to Caswell?).
  • The Demographics section is unbalanced with only a racial breakdown of the county from the most recent census but then a bunch of detail from 22 years ago.
  • The Economy section has several primary sources, and evidence of original research: The claim Caswell County benefits from its proximity to the greater Piedmont Triad area, Danville, Virginia, and the Research Triangle. Residents have access to a host of goods, services, attractions, and employment in the region. is extrapolated from random aggregated info from withinhours.com with the parameter set to 1 hour distance. That's as good as citing a Google search result page.
  • The Healthcare section is mostly sourced to the company websites of local providers, which are all primary sources.
  • Parks and Recreation section seems to be a collection of trivia.
  • Arts and Culture includes a bunch of flowery claims like The Caswell County Civic Center in Yanceyville has a full-size professionally equipped stage, a 912-seat auditorium, and meeting and banquet facilities for up to 500 sourced directly to promotional county government websites.
  • The Notable people section is mostly a collection of unsourced trivia.
  • I've gone through the article and added [citation needed] tags where appropriate. There are 16 at minimum that need to be resolved (I didn't tag all things in need of better sourcing).
  • While citation uniformity is not needed for GA, they're such a mix and mess that it inhibits verifiability. Many are little more than a url, title, and retrieval date (the actual website name and publisher would be nice and helps us determine reliability). A whole edition of The North Carolina Historical Review and whole PDFs are cited without any specific page numbers.
• In summary this article is not well written in accordance with GA criterium 1 (lack of paragraph consolidation or proper lede), is not verifiable with no original research in accordance with GA criterium 2 (see above), is not broad in its coverage in accordance with GA criterium 3 (lack of focus and unnecessary details), and is not neutral in accordance with GA criterium 4 (sourcing to county tourism sites and corporate webpages leading to flowery language and UNDUE emphasis on certain businesses and locations). So clearly failing 4 of the 6 GA criteria at the outset, this nomination should be quickfailed. I know a lot of good faith effort was put into this article, but old problems remain and some new ones were inadvertently introduced. It's simply not ready for promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging @Peabodyb as he is the main editor of the article. Thanks for starting the review Indy beetle! DiscoA340 (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging SounderBruce again for comments regarding this. Sparkl^talk 22:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• If you don't mind, I might have a poke around this article. For starters, I recommend completely axing the "Notable people" section. I hope I'm not discouraging you Disco, I've been searching for a GA status county article to use as a model to work towards for other county articles (like Scotland) and I've had no luck. County articles seem to be some of the most difficult to overhaul. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I struggled to start this review, mostly because I was hesitant to quick-fail the article. Given the state, and Indy beetle's points, I think that's the best option here. A few of my points are in the next section. SounderBruce 07:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 12, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: As said above, the lead is too short and the sentences in the History section are too choppy and disorganized.

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: The History section is skewed far too much towards the 19th century and mid-20th century, with very little said for events after the 1970s (a whole half-century ago). Other sections are lacking prose in places, especially those that are primarily in list form (such as Infrastructure, Education, Healthcare, and Parks).

4. Neutral point of view?: Not evaluated at this time.

5. Stable?: Citation style needs work. Some sources are not reliable or fully accounted for.

6. Images?: Fine but not great. Three maps is a bit overkill and the History section needs a few more to balance out for its length.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— SounderBruce 07:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.