Talk:Millbourne, Pennsylvania

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Millbourne, Pennsylvania article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Millbourne, Pennsylvania 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
Date	Process	Result
February 17, 2022	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 1, 2022	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 14, 2022	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The "Culture" Section[edit]

Seriously sounds like it was written by a gentrification cheerleader. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Millbourne, Pennsylvania. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815134909/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

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) 02:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Millbourne, Pennsylvania. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514002854/http://www.millbournepd.org/ to http://www.millbournepd.org/

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) 13:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Millbourne, Pennsylvania. 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:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html to https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html

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) 09:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 20:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this, but there seems to be major sections without sources, as well as many essential sections (as laid out in WP:USCITIES) completely missing. Sounder Bruce 20:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 17, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: A variety of MOS issues, including external links in prose, lack of Sentence case in titles, casual language, and poor organization.

2. Verifiable?: Most sections are uncited and do not appear to be reliably sourced.

3. Broad in coverage?: Several essential sections are missing, including the History, Arts, Government, Parks and recreation, Media, and Infrastructure/Transportation.

4. Neutral point of view?: Several sections are written with a promotional tone.

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?: Image sizes do not need to be manually set, and they should generally be right-adjusted.

I think it would be best if the article was overhauled and expanded before another review is requested. Please look at existing neighborhood and city GAs before proceeding.

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.— Sounder Bruce 07:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 18:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this article at GAN! Unfortunately, I am going to have to fail it without giving a full review, due to the third immediate failure criteria stated at WP:GACR, which says, It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. In February 2022, a cleanup banner was placed on the article with two points. While confirming that the first point (This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards) is still valid would require a much closer read-through, the lack of sourcing in this article is cause for an immediate failure with or without a cleanup banner. The banner simply alerted me to the verification issues within.

In the interest of helping you bring this article to GA status at some point in the future, allow me to point out several examples of what I mean:

Only the first sentence under the "Geography" subhead is referenced.
Only the first and last paragraph in the "Landmarks" subhead is referenced. The parts on Upper darby, the community garden and homeless shelter, and Cobbs Creek all require citations.
Within "Culture", nothing in "Diversity" or "Food" is referenced.
The sentence about the Town Watch requires a citation.
The 2010 and 2000 Censuses are not cited.
Neither "public transportation" nor "utilities" are referenced, within the "Infrastructure" subhead.

Additionally, even the references that are included are not fully formatted. The GA criteria I linked earlier state that Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source. This means, in practice, the inclusion of writers, publishes, and most importantly for online references, access dates. For written works like History of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, that means page numbers.

I hope that my advice makes sense, and I suggest that you look at some town articles that have been promoted to Good Article to get a sense of what we are looking for. — Ghost River 18:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GhostRiver, Where in the GA criteria is a requirement for page numbers stated? Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria Please ping with reply. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood As stated above, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source. In addition to that, WP:GACR also states that reviewers should ensure those [sources] you can access support the content of the article. It is impossible for a reviewer to verify whether information is found somewhere in, say, a 500-page book if there are no indicators as to where in the book such information may be found. — Ghost River 13:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GhostRiver, does the table of contents or the index not provide sufficient information? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Millbourne, Pennsylvania/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 13:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review coming soon. Steelkamp (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to quickfail this review. There are several problems:

This is a long way from meeting the good article criteria for being well written and broad in its coverage.
There are several instances of close paraphrasing, as shown by this tool.
The tag at the top of the article is definitely still valid.
The issues stated in the previous two reviews have not been fixed.

Here are some things you should do before renominating this article again.

The article could do with a major rewrite. This would help with GA criterion 1 and with the close paraphrasing issue.
Expansion is needed for the history section. Why is there hardly any history from 1909 to the present?
Unit conversions should be added for the temperatures.
There are some paragraphs which should have sources added.
What's a shared car "node"?
If the borough had a fire department until 2019, then who provides that service now?
There's no detail on state or federal politics. What state and federal electoral district is Millbourne in?
What is a borough? Is there a page that can be linked to that explains that?
Courts and schools are only mentioned in the lead. Education in particular could do with its own section.
There's honestly too many images.
Look at what the other reviewers before me have said. They make good points.

I suggest you don't nominate this article again until at least the above things are fixed. Steelkamp (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp, from my understanding, the issues that still remain from the other reviewers include MOS issues, referencing issues, and broad coverage. Is this correct? PersonKnows (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Steelkamp (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content assessment[edit]

I have conducted a fresh assessment and determined that this article deserves a C-class rating. It has shown significant improvement since its initial Start classification. Please take a moment to review. PersonKnows (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]