Talk:Seymour, Indiana

Untitled

I hardly doubt that only 4.85% of the population in 2000 was Hispanic, numbers closer to 20% would be more accurate(unless of course you don't count the illegals). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Need documentation to prove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Baron Hill.

Baron Hill is a notable resident of Seymour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.136.78 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Teri Moren

There is no University of Indiana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.113.157 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

TODO

1. houses

whitcomb's old goodwill building old elks home post office / federal building

2006/7 tornados stam miss indiana/America 1950's miss indiana Lusitania sinking / yale scholarship

1. 1937 Flood
2. 1990s Flood
3. 1974 Tornadoes
4. 1977 Blizzard
5. 1920-30s Klan
6. tear gas incident at basketball sectional -> Midcentury — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
7. Industrialization (turn of the 20th century) Seymour Shirt Factory
8. Post War Industrialization
9. Sister Cities (Japan, Germany) (probably not maintained)

1. Migration statistical anomalies?

1. Opioid Epidemic

1. Class divisions (eg. North Part of Town vs South)
2. Current housing crisis and inflation?
3. End of Passenger Rail

1. Who advocated for the large indoor pool in the High School gym? It's in the paper somewhere. probably put it on the SHS wiki page.
2. Religion
   1. Lutheranism
   2. Catholicism
   3. Baptists
   4. Presbyterian
   5. Pentecostal

1. city expansions
   1. Burkhart Blvd
   2. Northern Annexation
      1. Apartments
      2. New Housing
   3. Southern Bypass

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itsjustjody:. You might want to consider moving this list either to a page in your userspace (if it's just essentially for your purposes) or convert it to something that uses the Template:To do for use on this article's talk (if your hoping for feedback from others). At some point this talk page may require archiving, which means that the post might end up archived by mistake. Using the "To do" template will make it easy to move the list up to the talk header and make it more visible for others to see as well. If you want to see how others are using the "To do" template on article talk pages, you can find some examples here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

ty

--Itsjustjody (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thankless task

this is a thankless task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustjody (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mural-Header.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced content and citation style

@Itsjustjody: Assuming most of the information you adding to the article is stuff your finding in reliable sources written about Seymour, you should try to make sure that any claims or statements that going beyond simple statement of facts are supported by a citation because they have a better chance of not being removed by another editor if they don't. The WP:BURDEN falls upon to the person adding content to an article to make sure its supported by a citation that can be verified. Sources cited in articles don't need to be available online (though that makes verification easier) as explained in WP:PUBLISHED, but they do need to be to reliable sources. So, if you cite old newspaper articles, etc. that aren't available online, then that's OK. You don't need to mention when they were downloaded (since that's not really helpful), but just try and provide as much information about the source as possible as explained in WP:CITEHOW and WP:SAYWHERE. If the source can be downloaded, then perhaps adding a link to the site would also be helpful as long as it's an official link for the source and not a WP:COPYLINK. There are also various ways to format citations as explained in WP:CITEVAR and WP:REFB, but you should try to be as consistent as possible when doing so with respect to MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:CITESTYLE. Whether citations need to be added at the ends of sentences or the ends of paragraphs depends on how long or detailed the paragraph might be. The citations should be as close as possible to whatever their supporting per WP:INTEGRITY and WP:RSCONTEXT, but multiple citations add to the end of short paragraph should be OK. Any interpretations or subjective claims as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch should be properly supported by a citation or left out altogether to avoid being considered WP:OR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks

can you provide an example where I am going beyond a statement of fact. Nearly everything is from the local newspaper through newspapers.com Itsjustjody (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There was a statement ("It's unclear if the two incidents were related.") in paragraph two of Seymour, Indiana#The Civil War that I removed because its seemed more like unsourced interpretation (i.e. original research) than not. Statements such as this can sometimes be added to articles, but they need to be properly attributed and supported by a reliable source so that it's doesn't appear to be something said in Wikipedia's voice. This might seem odd, but content we add to articles is supposed be written in our own words and summarize what we find in reliable sources. The reader doesn't know who is adding the content but assumes it Wikipedia because it's not being attributed to us individually. So, any type of claim or interpretation should be attributed to whatever source is making it as much as possible so that the reader knows where the statement is coming from. Sometimes, it's sufficient to simply proved a citation as a form of attribution, but other times WP:INTEXT attribution is preferable, particularly for quotes, opinions or interpretations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks Itsjustjody (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Namechecking and not everything

@Itsjustjody: Some other things you might want to keep in mind are WP:Namechecking and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It probably not really encyclopedically relevant to Wikipedia readers to know who appeared in a John Mellencamp video, unless the persons themselves are Wikipedia notable in their own right and have articles written about them. Even in that case, such content probably belong in the article about the song or video since that's where it's most relevant. Same goes for local historians writing a book, police officers getting killed or notable residents graduated from high school. One of the things about Wikipedia is that lots of it is linked together and it's written in a summary style; so, mentioning these people by name is probably OK here, but not to much detail is needed because it most likely can be found in their respective articles. If there are no other articles about these people or things related to them, then perhaps the content doesn't merit inclusion. Wikipedia isn't really intended to be written like a newspaper article and focus should be kept to really significant events in the Seymour's history that might go beyond a purely local level. It might be hard to compare Seymour to other cities, but you might want to look at some of the examples in WP:FA#Geography and places for reference since WP:FAs are generally considered to the best of the best when it comes to Wikipedia articles. FA articles are perfect and they might have changed quite a bit since they were awarded FA status, but they can be good for general reference and might give you some ideas on future ways to improve this particular article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks again

--Itsjustjody (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm don't adding content about local diners and similar things is the kind of stuff that should be included in this article. Even if the content can be supported by reliable sources, it's doesn't seem to be really encyclopedically relevant to the general Wikipedia reader per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and actually might be seen as a bit promotional of these businesses per WP:NOTPROMOTION. It might be different if these places were Wikipedia notable in their own right per WP:NCORP and had articles created about them, but otherwise it's a form of WP:Namechecking for local businesses. Wikipedia articles aren't intended to be directories, tourist guides or listings of local business per WP:NOT and you seem to be moving the article in that direction (unintentionally perhaps) in your attempts to expand the article. If you're goal is to make this article a WP:GA or WP:FA, then adding this type of "trivial" content is not going to help you achieve that. The can be sections about the "Economy", "Culture", etc. and other encyclopedically relevant aspects about Seymour, but there shouldn't really be content devoted to individual business or people which moves into WP:LOCAL territory. It's also not necessary for the reader to know where John Mellencamp might have hung out or that his son is on the board of directors of some NPO owned by his family. This article is not an extension of the Seymour Tribune and not everything found in pages of the paper needs to be mentioned here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

thank you

Marchjuly

thank you for all your recent help improving this document.

--Itsjustjody (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to thank me and it's unfortunate that you might have felt this to be a "thankless task" at some point. Wikipedia can make you feel that way sometimes based on how it's set up, but most established Wikipedians try to be WP:HERE and make edits they think are improvements in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, not because they expect to be thanked for doing so. Sometimes when you spend most of your time on a single thing, it can be easily to get frustrated when others might not share your "vision" for how that thing should be. When that happens it can sometimes help to take a step back and work on some other stuff. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

yeah. sometimes I need to step back when I take some of the deletions personally. I worked on that list of mayors and I don't see any reason to not include it.

Either way, I have lots of other articles about the area to distract me. Oh, and work too. Itsjustjody (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Embedding lists in articles can be tricky and there's lots of disagreement on how it should be done or whether it should be done at all. Many editors consider such content to be a type of WP:LISTCRUFT or a way to bloat an article by making the article seem bigger than it is justified in being. Often such lists exist as separate articles in their own right (e.g. Mayor of New York City and List of mayors of Niagara Falls, New York); so, there's no need to repeat the list in other related articles when a link or a WP:HATNOTE works just as well. Some articles might have such lists, but others may not; however, just because a similar section can be found in another article, doesn't mean it should be there as explained in WP:OTHERCONTENT. Many editors believe that lists need to be defined as specifically as possible per WP:LSC and all (or pretty close to all) of the entries should have Wikipedia articles already written about them. There's nothing about "list of mayors" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, but you can start a discussion about the list here on this talk page and then use a Template:Please see to let the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities know about it. Perhaps they can provide more specific feedback. You can also start a discussion about the list and ask for clarification as to why it was removed by pinging the person who removed it. Generally, it's the person who wants to add or re-add certain content who should seek consensus by starting such a discussion as explained in WP:ONUS, but some editors who remove content will often explain why in detail on the article's talk page after it's removed as courtesy if they feel it's necessary to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

good stuff. thanks

--Itsjustjody (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Section Ordering

Reminder - the section ordering should follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

nice

--Itsjustjody (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

WWII Citations

What citations are we missing in WWII?

I don't see any. At one point a included the number of war casualties from Seymour but it looks like it has been removed.

Can we remove this tag now?

Thanks,

--Itsjustjody (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Two of the last three paragraphs of the section are completely unsourced and the one is supported by a single citation. The first three paragraphs look OK, but none of the sources are available online; so, none of them can be verified. Not being available online is not always a problem per WP:PUBLISHED as long as the source being cited is reliable and used in proper context, but unsourced states can be removed at anytime per WP:BURDEN. If you're going to cite sources that aren't available online, please try to provide as much information as possible about them as explained here because doing so can help others try and track down the source. So, if you want to cite a newspaper article, try and also provide the name of the writer (if there's a byline) as well as the name of the article because sometimes this can help others find a version of the article that is actually online. Many Wikipedia editors are able to access sites like Newspapers.com or other online archive-type sites, and often a request can be made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to verify a source. It's also a good idea to try and place a citation as close as possible to the content it supports per WP:INTEGRITY, but there might be different ways of doing this and it depends on what's being cited. Short paragraphs of simple factual statements are probably OK with all the relevant citations placed at the end of the paragraph, but larger more complex paragraphs probably need the citations placed after the relevant sentences. Anything that might be seen as contentious as well as quoted speech should have the supporting citation as close a possible per WP:INTEXT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Mid Century Citation

What citations are we missing in Mid-century?

I don't see any. At one point a included the number of korean war casualties from Seymour but it looks like it has been removed.

Thanks,

--Itsjustjody (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The content about servicemen killed in the Korean War still seems to be there, but it's unsourced. It's also not clear whether the sources provided for the high school apply to only the gym or to the first sentence of that paragraph as well about the school being moved. Same for the content about the "Seymour Story" and the sources for the first paragraph of the section. The last two sentences of the section about the Vietnam War are unsourced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

1. seymour story citation added.
2. casualties. I'll find the citation again
3. this is on a vietnam memorial page. I'll find it again. all deaths in vietnam are documented

--Itsjustjody (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Late Century Citations

What citations are we missing in 'Late Century'?

I don't see any. At one point a included the number of vietnam war casualties from Seymour but it looks like it has been removed.

Thanks,

--Itsjustjody (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph is unsupported. Please understand that having WP:WIKILINKs in a section is not the same thing as being supported by a citation. Wikilinks are a way of connecting relevant articles together, but Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources for the reasons explained here. The statement about Donal Scott being interim mayor is also unsourced. Same goes for the claims made about Mellencamp's videos and the plight of American farmers as well as about his film. All of those statements/claims are most likely true, but Wikipedia requires they also be verified as explained here. Claims and interpretations, in particular, need to be reliably sourced and properly attributed per WP:INTEXT and WP:SYN because otherwise they end up being written in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. the claim appears to be being made by Wikipedia), which isn't a desirable thing per WP:WIKIVOICE. Whether the meanings of Mellencamp videos are encyclopedically relevant to the reader of this particular article is unclear per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, but unsourced claims and interpretations often end up being quickly removed per WP:NOR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

1. just finished the citation for the first paragraph.
2. The donald scott citation disappeared with the list of mayors. I'll find it again.
3. still reading the new biography. I'm sure its in there somewhere more later

Itsjustjody (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding "downloaded on ...." to the citations you're adding. This is irrelevant information and doesn't help in identifying the source at all. It matters not to readers or others trying to verify content when you downloaded the source. Instead of adding that bit of information, it would be more helpful for you to provide more information about the source like the name of the author and the name of the article. Assuming you're finding these sources somewhere online since you're downloading them, then it might be helpful to know exactly where you're downloading them from to further aid in verification. There are ways to cite archive sites like Newspaper.com (see Wikipedia:Newspapers.com) if that's where you're finding these articles, and some editors can access such sites. It might also be a good idea to look for sources other than the local paper. If content can only be supported by citations to the Seymour Tribune, then perhaps it's not something that needs to be mentioned per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's generated by newspapers.com when I download the article in pdf format to get the citation. I copy and paste it from there. I'll look at wikipedia:newspapers.com for reference. Itsjustjody (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

okay. I'll change the citations to the appropriate format for newspapers.com. This will take a bit but I have all the clippings on my laptop.

--Itsjustjody (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your I copy and paste it from there statement. Are you copying and pasting content found in these articles directly into this Wikipedia article? If you are, please read WP:C-P because doing such a thing creates problems (sometime big problems). If you're not directly copying and pasting content but are only making minor alterations to it, please look at WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE because this can also be a problem. Copyright violations need to be removed from Wikipedia articles, including their page histories, asap and this can be quite complicated and require administrator assistance when it involves lots of content added over an extended period of time and there have been lots of edits made to the article during that time period. So, if, by chance, you were doing these types of things simply because you weren't aware of relevant Wikipedia policy, then that's OK. You should, however, stop doing so because it just creates more things that need to be cleaned up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the slipping has a "citation" included at the top of the article. if I could attached one to this page it would be nice. It's exactly what I copy into the references tags

--Itsjustjody (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Check out the top right corner of this clipping. Feel free to delete if it breaks a rule.

--Itsjustjody (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't really upload clippings from newspaper articles to Wikipedia or Commons unless they are freely licensed because that actually would be a copyvio, and such clippings (even uploaded as non-free content) cannot be used on talk pages per WP:TPG#Non-free images. There a couple of ways to format a citation for a Wikipedia article. You can find out more at H:REFB. If you're citing newspaper articles, then perhaps you can add the name of the writer and the name of the article as well because it might help others track them down. Some of the more recent articles might actually still be available online via the paper's own official website and this could be used instead of newspapers.com. Some papers also have their own archives and these might be able to be used as well. Even if the archive is behind a paywall, it can probably still be used per WP:PAYWALL. There are a number of editors who have access to such sites and they can help verify a source via WP:RX. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

rgr.

re: image. I knew it would be taken down. I just wanted you to see the article and citation as I see it on my computer. I'm not plagiarising at all. just copying and pasting the citation blurb in the corner. I'll use the wikipedia recommended format for newspapers.com and see if that works for everyone. I don't get any content from Seymour's local paper. It's behind a paywall. It takes a couple months to make it to newspapers.com

--Itsjustjody (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Any newspaper articles published prior to January 1, 1927, would (almost certainly) be within the public domain; so, content directly copied and pasted from them should be OK as long as it properly attributed and licensed. There are ways to add public domain or freely licensed textual content to articles as explained here. You need to be careful, however, with anything published in 1927 or later since that when things can get tricky. Short quoted text is probably OK per MOS:QUOTE, but large blocks of text made be problematic (even when supported by a citation to the original source). Some content related to Seymour's climate was recently removed by an administrator named Diannaa because of this reason, and it looks like you were advised about this once before on your user talk page. Dianna just removed the same or similar content again; so, perhaps you missed the message she left on your user talk page or didn't understand it. If this was just an innocent mistake, that's OK and you can try and summarize and re-write it in your own words if you want; you shouldn't, however, re-add the same content again as is.

As for the newspaper.com citations, you can format them using Template:Cite news if you like. The template's documentation page explains out to use it, but most of the basic parameters are easy to understand. The original source would be the newspaper in question (not newspapers.com), but you can use the url to newspaper.com for the |url= parameter and then add newspaper.com with the |via= parameter. You can also use this template even if the old article isn't available online, but in that case you should try and provide as much information about the original source as possible and leave the |url= parameter empty. There are other types of citation templates that might work better for other types of sources. You can experiment with these templates in your user sandbox if you want to see how they work and look when properly formatted before adding them to articles. The one Seymour Tribune clip file you posted above did show the writer's name and article title; so, you should try to add these things as well as any other relevant information whenever possible to the existing citations already in the article and include it any new citations you may add from hereon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I added a new citation following mention of Donald Scott being mayor for a short time. I used the newspaper template as requested. I'll change the other newspapers.com / seymour tribune citations to match if the scott citation is correct as time / life allow.

--Itsjustjody (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do that. I've cleaned up the syntax a bit. In the case of newspapers, it's probably a bit better to use the citation template {{cite news}} instead of the more general {{citation}} that you used. There's also noting wrong with writing the template syntax vertically per se, but writing horizontally inline seems to be more common and perhaps less prone to the syntax accidentally being damaged by subsequent edits. When using urls to sites like Newspapers.com, it's probably helpful to use the |via= parameter to indicate where the url is going to take the reader. Such urls are referred to as convenience links on Wikipedia and they often are helpful; there are, however, some limitations as to how they should and can be used. The |url-access= parameter can also be helpful to the reader when the source being cited is behind some sort of WP:PAYWALL. You can find more details about some of the parameters I mentioned above at Help:Citation Style 1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

will do

--Itsjustjody (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the late century section again. I'll fix the newspaper citations and then ask for the banner to be removed. --Itsjustjody 08:13, 8 August 2022 (EST)

the newspaper citation template is not producing the expected result. -- Itsjustjody 08:28, 8 August 2022 (EST)

Pork Tenderloin photo

What does this photo have to do with "Culture"? There's no mention of anything in that particular section or in the entire article about pork tenderloin. Images should be contextually related to article content per WP:IUP#Adding images to articles to avoid them having the appearance of simply being decorative or randomly added. If there's some connection between Seymour and the dish, then that should be mentioned in the article somewhere and the image should be place near that content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well it was in with a photo of Larrisons that was removed. Larrison's famous dish is the tenderloin. to include larrisons I have to find citations that are other-than local. I have those but I have to find them.

So, is an allusion to a section that needs to be put back in to make sense.

--Itsjustjody (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well the photo should be removed then, unless the dish is somehow more connected to the city than just being something one restaurant is famous for. Many cities have foods associated with them (e.g. Coney Island hot dogs, deep-dish pizza, gumbo) and it's OK to include these dishes in a "Cuisine" or "Food culture" section if there are reliable sources stating that its cuisine is one of the things the city is known for and this cover goes beyond the local level. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

@Itsjustjody: I know that a number of the files you uploaded for use in the infobox were deleted from Commons for licensing issues. Perhaps these issues will eventually be sorted out and they can be restored. If you live in the Seymour area or know someone who does (you don't have to and probably shouldn't post any personal information here), then perhaps there's a way to find some other representative images of the city to use in the infobox. Anyone who lives in the area can simply take some photos of things they feel represent the city and then upload them to Commons as their c:COM:Own work. The current infobox photo is miscaptioned and more of historical photo that probably would work better in the body of the article near relevant content than in the main infobox. Photos can often be found via posts on WikiProject talk pages or Wikipedia:Requested pictures, but knowing someone in the area often is a bit faster. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks

--Itsjustjody (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Date format used for citations

At some point something probably should be done about the date format being used to ensure that it's consistent throughout the entire article per MOS:DATEUNIFY. The things to consider here are MOS:DATEFORMAT, MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATEVAR. The date format for the citations was quite a mixed-bag before the recent expansion of the article; so, this issue doesn't really have anything to do edits made by one particular editor. Often this thing happens because different users editing content over the years just are used to formatting everything in a certain way that they don't look to see how it fits in with previously added content. Generally, the American English format of MDY seems to be used in article about US cities and switching to this just involves some cleanup. The all numerical (YYYY-MM-DD) format and British English DMY format would also work. Regardless of which format is chosen, the important thing is to be consistent (at least as much as possible). -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

will do

--Itsjustjody (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Asheiou (talk · contribs) 19:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose is to a very high standard. Very easy to read.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	No MoS issues as far as I can see!	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Formatted correctly.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The references that exist are all local newspapers, books, or other reliable sources. No issues with those. I notice, however, that sections of the article (Government, Transportation, Notable people, groups and organisations, Local media, and Nearby points of interest) are lacking citations that concretely link these things to Seymour. I'd appreciate individual citations for these entries. N There's still a lot that remains uncited here. For the listed features like radio and people, individual citations for each entry that explains their link to Seymour would be very helpful. I also see a few bare URLs that I would prefer be correctly labelled. Reference 57, within the world wars section, is also labelled in Spanish, and I'd prefer this be changed to English. N There are still a lot of WP:BURLs that make it difficult to discern what the references mean. These need to be fleshed out with titles and more context.	Fail
(c) (original research)	Given the nature of a lot of these references, I am unable to do a comprehensive search of every one. I have spot-checked several references that all match what the article is saying.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	There's a section in the top paragraph of this page which also appears in the article, in the 19th century section. This is not cited in the article. Copyvio detector link Y I see there's a reference.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article covers the town's history, demography, transportation, geography, etc. in the perfect level of detail. However, I would appreciate a section on the economy of the city. WP:USCITY has some good guidelines on what a section like that should entail. Y The economy section looks very nice! - I think further details about Seymour's relative geography would be useful. Doesn't need the detail of New York City, but some more info would be great!	Fail
(b) (focused)	The article doesn't spend too long on sidetracks. Per SounderBruce's comments and my own reread, I don't think the full list of mayors really belongs on this page.	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
All looks good to me.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No issues here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are tagged as public domain or CC BY(-SA).	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images are relevant and captioned correctly.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	If you can resolve the issues I've mentioned with referencing, a missing economy section, and copyvio and then @ping me once you're done, I'd be happy to take another look! N There are still some issues that remain unresolved. If you can fix them, I'll check it out again.

Discussion

Hi @Itsjustjody, I've reviewed your GA nomination. If you can take a look through and address what I've found, I'll give it another look. Thank you! -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

awesome. thx. Itsjustjody (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

One more slight thing, I think the article would benefit immensely from an economy section! You can read about what that should entail at WP:USCITY#Economy. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 21:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

done ~~~ Itsjustjody (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hiya, I've updated my review. If you can address the remaining problems, I'll give it another look! -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 17:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

sure will. I'll have to convert those bare urls into news refeneces. btw, is there any easy way to create a climate section? I tried to create one a long time ago but a got dinged for plagiarism from the weather site I used, so i removed it. Itsjustjody (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a simple way of doing it as I'm not familiar with American place articles to that level. You could have a poke around some other articles and see how they did it? -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added a new section on the economy. Itsjustjody (talk)

Hiya @Itsjustjody, if you could provide me a timeframe for when you'll be working on this, I'd be grateful! > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I work on it everyday. Cleaning up the citations will take sometime as it's confusing to me what citations are bad vs. good. I really appreciate the help. Thank you again Itsjustjody (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

so, you want a citation that explains the J Otis Adams was born in Seymour, for example? Itsjustjody (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'd appreciate citations for every individual person & radio station listed in the lists at the bottom of the article that says why they're connected to the town. Sorry about my slow response, I've been quite busy! @Itsjustjody > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 02:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

will do. taking a few days off to move. I'll be back at it in july. thanks again~~~ Itsjustjody (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to be able to continue to commit the time to give this GAN the care it deserves, so I've put it up for a second opinion. If the other reviewer would like to finish the review, I would be grateful! > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 21:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to close this as a fail now. There hasn't been any work on sorting the issues since the end of June and as I see it, there are some quite significant issues still to be addressed. The lede, for example, does not summarise the important information in the article and is probably still too short for the length of article. As mentioned, the article is not weighted properly; the geography section is much too short, at least relative to the history section. I'm not too sure why there is a folklore section, this should just be summarised in the history section. There are also lots of sources needed towards the end of the article, an issue which has been pointed out but not addressed. The article still needs plenty of work to be up to GA standard. Willbb234 11:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

this page is in the progress of being GA'd

Please don't remove content or make major changes to the content. GA approval is only waiting on citations for the "notable people" section (and I want to complete citations for the mayors). The only other content I believe it's missing is a "climate" section but GA did not ask for this. It's just a 'nice to have'. Unless you can help with these sections, be kind and refrain. ItsjustGatsby (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OWN applies; any editor can step in and make changes even if there is an ongoing content review. The mayors list is not notable (as evidenced by the lack of articles for these mayors) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. There's a lot of additional problems with the article that would prevent its promotion to GA (lack of a proper Geography section, prose issues, over-detailing of unimportant elements, bullet-point lists that should be prose). SounderBruce 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)