Talk:Great Barrington, Massachusetts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeGreat Barrington, Massachusetts 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
August 27, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed

Early discussion[edit]

As a GB resident there was a lot info on this page that was chatty or poorly summarized. I tried to update nightlife/entertainment info but will make a more comprehensive review later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothumb (talkcontribs)

Were you posting as 65.118.139.246? --AJD 23:14, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ga, this article is not an encyclopedia article... john k 23:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll determine if the sushi is good at a particular restaurant if I eat there. Alas, I do not eat sushi and have never been in this town, so making a large edit to the troublesome "Food and Entertainment" section seems inappropriate. So I added the NPOV tag. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • When I visited, I was surprised by the sheer number of sushi and hibachi places, though I only ate at one.--Eion 11:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be made neutral. It's a bit more celebratory than factual. It is a fine town, but opinions here are a little too prevalent in the text.Woodson 02:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Why are all of the images of historical nature? why are there no contemporary photos of how the town looks today? ROxBo (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Government[edit]

I was looking at this page randomly and saw that they state that Paul Kirk is the junior senator when it is Scott Brown. I went ahead and changed it and then one of the Wikipedia admins sent me a message saying my changes were undocumented and changed it back!!! I don't understand why the heck you would put something that is false. I was clearly just changing what was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.55.113 (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the one that reverted your edit. Sorry if the information you added was correct, but as you did not cite any reliable sources, I assumed that it was political vandalism. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Barrington, Massachusetts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 10:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear, I've to quickly fail this. I'm sorry but this article is not near to GA status and issues can't be fixed within a month or some so failing it. Here is an brief explanation of the problems:

  • Refs - Majority of them are WP:Bare URLs and some are unreliable sources which makes this eligible for a quick fail
  • Unref - Large amounts of facts are unreferenced and needs WP:RS using WP:Citing sources
  • Lead - per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the article and should be neutral which it is not
  • Neutrality - There are WP:PEACOCK terms in the article as well as few statements are not neutral.
  • Images - They look awkward and caption needs to improved as well as needs WP:ALT
  • MoS - There are many small paras and in the way they are, are not proper. The structure of the article is little too poor
  • Incomplete - There is a lot of info that can be added to the topic thus this is an incomplete article
  • Phrase - It needs throughout copyediting.

TheSpecialUser TSU 07:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]