Bellefontaine, Ohio 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.
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
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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The city has recently added a new elementary and middle school complex, so that part of the article should be changed, but I can't find a good source to cite, so I'll leave it up to y'all. Hallaman3 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Don't want this in the article, but what are some ISPs in this city?
You can get either Roadrunner or Comcast for cable; I'm not sure, but I'm guessing Comcast. Bright.net is available for dialup, and Sprint provides DSL. I know that there are more, but those are all that I can come up with at the moment. Nyttend 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually, in the city itself, it's Charter, not Comcast. Unless, that is, that has changed in the last 6 months. -- SwissCelt 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I can confirm that the cable provider in Bellefontaine is Charter Communications. They also only offer up to 3Mbps service, and offer no high definition television service in this city, and have no plans to in the future. -- Jon99UT 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just wanted to confirm Jon99UT's statement about Charter, and also say that it's "Embarq" that offers DSL service (1.5, 3.0, 5.0 and 10.0 meg). Dial-up service is not dependent on location, therefore, there are a plethora of dial-up providers in any town in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.31.64.87 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
at least locally, (I don't know about all over), but "Embarq"'s name was changed to "CenturyLink™" Hallaman3 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Good catch, Kevin! I think when I wrote that I made the mistake of presuming there'd only be one town named "Blue Jacket's Town". Since Blue Jacket's Town currently redirects to Bellefontaine, do you have any more material that we might use to spin off an article? SwissCelt 13:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Probably not much more, but perhaps enough for a very short article, since there were of total of 4 Blue Jacket's Towns. I'll see if there's enough material. Everything, BTW, was taken from Sugden's book Blue Jacket. --Kevin Myers 23:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In my estimation, Bethany Dillon meets the notability standard for inclusion in this article. She has earned a major award in her field. She also appears to have been a resident of Bellefontaine. Therefore, I don't see a reason not to include her. -- SwissCelt 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
I'll have to fail this article as it is far from GA status. The lead does not summarize the article. External links within prose and lists are discouraged. The Geography and Economy sections are still stubs. There are very few inline citations. Epbr123 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Let's be clear: You failed the article mere minutes after it was nominated, and you removed its nomination so that nobody else could comment. You did this after you labelled the article as start class, without leaving any comments. I'm really trying hard here to assume good faith, but your actions make it very difficult for me to do so. Perhaps you could have allowed other editors to give some input before you trashed this article? Anyway, as I told you on your talk page, I'm going to have to cool off here. Let some other editors chime in... I'll revisit this later. -- SwissCelt 12:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but this article definitely doesn't look like a Good Article to me either. Nyttend 12:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
One of the problems with the article is the amount of lists. It's understandable under the 'Law and government' section, but in the 'Sites of interest', 'Media' and 'Famous past and present residents' sections it isn't really acceptable. If a place is really of interest more than a single sentance can be written about it. The media isn't explained at all. As for famous residents, that section should be turned into prose and explainations given for each person (why they are notable and their link to Bellefontaine), that section also needs referencing. Broadly though this is a good article and at the moment should perhaps qualify as B-class rather than just start class; the article has the stucture of a GA but needs to be fleshed out significantly. Nev1 13:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
re: above -I will address some of these areas when I get a chance. Strangersound (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
”
* a particularly useful picture or graphic
* multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
* a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
* multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
This article has all of these. It has several useful pictures and graphics. It has multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic. It has at least one, and I would argue several, subheadings that fully treat elements of this topic. And it has multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article. Indeed, this article not only meets all of these criteria (where a Start-class article need only meet one), it exceeds the criteria. Rating this as Start-class was a grievous error, and I'm only sorry I compounded it by nominating this article for GA as a last-ditch effort to remove the erroneous Start-class ranking. Please, rate this article as B-class where it belongs for now. -- SwissCelt 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
"For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture."
This article covers history and demographics well, but is weak on geography, transport, economy and culture. Epbr123 14:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
That explains how the article, in your opinion anyway, only merely meets one of the criteria. You've yet to establish that it fails any of the other criteria. Indeed, you've stated nothing to counter my assertions above. Agreeing with me on one of the criteria does not prove your case that this is a Start-class article, and not of higher quality. -- SwissCelt 15:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're arguments have only shown tbat it is at least start class. You have said nothing to show that it is B class. If you had spend this time improving the article, it might be up to GA class by now. Epbr123 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be the only one arguing that it is Start-class. And the time I've spent arguing this point has at least kept you from randomly sniping at other articles, giving them lower rankings than they otherwise deserve and leaving nothing behind for editors to know what to improve. Moreover, by bringing this argument to bear here I'm certain that at least this article will be improved, as others come forth to explain what needs to be improved. Time well spent, I say. Of course, that's what happens when one collaborates on articles and communicates on how they may be improved, instead of making a bunch of hit-and-run edits. -- SwissCelt 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
And by the way, I did show that it is B class. From the criteria for a B class article: "Has several of the elements described in 'start'..." That's precisely what I demonstrated above. -- SwissCelt 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't see your point. I think start-class may have "several of the elements described in 'start'..." as well. Epbr123 15:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Alright, let's put it to a vote. Start-class or B-class? I vote B-class. -- SwissCelt 18:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're hardly an unbiased reviewer. Epbr123 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Might I suggest asking for a Third Opinion? Both parties would agree to abide by the decision and ask for a ruling by a neutral and previously unconnected party. Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ratings are a tool to help Wikipedia 1.0 project reviewers with selecting articles for physical versions of Wikipedia. There is nothing but personal pride that makes it worth discussing a rating.
Personally I have conduct a lot of assessments for WP:VG. When reviewing an article on request, it is considered good form to leave suggestions for improvement akin to a peer review. This will allow editors to improve the article easily. It is also easier to see why an article was rated as it is.
With that said, this article is quite clearly start class. The article is composed of a bot-made section, a few lists, some stub sections, and an unsourced history section. Transforming the lists into prose, finding sources for the history section (or cite the current ones more), and expanding the stub sections would make this a B-class article. If a numeric treshold is wanted, try to have at least four reliable, independent, sources. Currently, two are present: the BBC article and the Ohio history. The city's website is not independent, the other is self-published.
Concluding, assessments are not a big deal. They are just a classification. What matters, is the feedback and review that usually accompanies an assessment. If you must have a rating, make it Start.
I am quite disappointed that none of the quite clear suggestions above were acted upon. Suggestions and constructive criticism take a long time to think up and write down. When not acted upon, the motivation of those writing up suggestions decreases rapidly. --User:Krator (tc) 20:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, well, that makes two of us. The amazing thing here is how everybody expects me to edit this article at the same time they caution me not to take ownership of it. Meanwhile, no one else wants to bother with any edits of their own. So while perhaps I can't be held blameless for leaving the project altogether, that's precisely what I shall now do. The cooling off period didn't work; I'm gone. I leave it to the rest of you to decide the best direction for Wikipedia, as I'm done fighting this battle. -- SwissCelt 19:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
A little confused here by SwissCelt - on his talk page as at May 25, 2007 he rants (his words not mine) on the dumb idea of assessment and that other editors can't be bothered to leave anything meaningful to help editors improve the article - however when editors do leave meaningful facts, copyedit etc templates at the exact location where such edits would improve the article he removes them. Not sure what else can be done - other than write the article for him - which is not what assessors should do. The reality is this article needs to be improved in a number of places before it gets closer to a rating above Start.--VStalk 02:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Bots make meaningful edits?? Hardly! And I take great umbrage to your claim that assessors should not write articles. That's why we're here!!! I think my rant is well-demonstrated here: You can't be bothered to edit the article, so instead you pile on with some quick and dirty vandalism that degrades other editors' attempts at writing a good article. Shame on you!!! -- SwissCelt 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think you're taking criticism too personally. No-one can write a perfect article that's behond criticism. We're just saying these things to help improve the article, not to ridicule its editors. Epbr123 01:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Take another day or three to calm down SwissCelt - Assessors should not take a major part in writing the article that they are assessing - check ... this is one of the first rules for assessing against WP:GAC. Not sure how you are getting the idea of Bots making meaningful edits - Assume Good Faith and check again my edit summary and point on the [citation needed] tag which to make it abundantly clear in terms of the content on this (or in fact any article) is that the Bot picks up the date when such a tag is added and then includes it into the script that reminds all other editors of articles looking for sources. If you think about it and move away from this ownership issue you have with this article you will realise that this action actually helps the article. Oh and careful with your choice of words please - templates are not vandalism!--VStalk 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
After all, assessors and editors aren't meant to be enemies. Let's calm down — could we agree on a couple days' moratorium on this topic on this page between those of us who have participated in this discussion? Nyttend 02:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
While I can understand the natural tendency to feel ownership of an article one has worked on a lot, I would also point out that both parties agreed to abide by the Third Opinion (see above). I see assessment as a map for improvement, not any sort of attack on the authors. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't be nearly as upset as I am if the assessment process had included a real map for improvement instead of a standalone subjective rating, which is all this article got before I complained. The Third Opinion called for comments for improvement in future assessments. From Talk:Warren, Ohio I see this hasn't been done as requested. I'm not going to unilaterally back down from this and allow assessors to continue to bulldoze poor assessments upon us hapless editors. That's not the purpose of the assessment process... assuming, of course, the assessment process had a purpose in the first place. -- SwissCelt 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please remember that Wikipedia is consensus-run. What's more, assessors also edit pages themselves. I'd recommend that you calm down, maybe take a few days' wikibreak. Nyttend 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
My feeling is that this type of info should be included, but being from this small town, perhaps I'm biased. What do you think? This is the info I had posted, and I have been told by many local individuals they found it very informative, especially since the city's own website doesn't come close to listing all of these people. Often, people come here to find out who they should contact for what:
I think a listing of people such as this fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: the point of having an online encyclopedia isn't to provide a list of contacts. As well, if they're not on the city website, then (unless they're listed on some other publication that you have) they shouldn't be listed here anyway — Wikipedia is for sourced information. Nyttend 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would like to see the City Bldg pic back in the article. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangersound (talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Name of city is French, but is not named for French cityedit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following is from a comment I left for User:Cliché Online regarding a recent edit:
Greetings! I regret to tell you that I had to undo an edit you had made to Bellefontaine, Ohio. While you are correct that several "cities" in France (actually communes; see Bellefontaine) existed under the name "Bellefontaine" prior to the establishment of the Ohio city, there is no evidence that any of these were the namesake for which Bellefontaine, Ohio is named. Quite to the contrary, the Ohio Historical Society states that the French words for "beautiful spring" were applied to this settlement to refer to actual springs.[1] The practice of naming American settlements with French words is also not unusual; see also Detroit, Michigan, Belle Fourche, South Dakota, and Presque Isle State Park in Pennsylvania... the last of which was named by Anglophones because it resembled the natural feature for which its French name refers, just as with Bellefontaine, Ohio. -- SwissCelt 06:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Take it from someone who lives there and has seen the world around it, don't edit and reduce artical size it is important for people to what Bellefonaine is.
Wikipedia is a informational website how can anyone get information if people are out there reducing artical content and important facts? Were do you get a more in depth story a summary or a the full story. It would be nice if someone would update Bellefontaine's Population our population is no longer 13,069, but more like 17,422.
I'm a Belle Center native: I am quite familiar with the area. I've reduced the Holland information because the Holland has its own article: we don't need to have everything repeated on here. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Most residences of Logan County are in tune with the operations of Bellefontaine, due to the fact that it is the only "city" in the county. I respect you editing job and pleased to know someone else is looking over Bellefontaine's artical. I however, find it easier to get information about a stated topic in one place.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I've reverted this week's two-piece edit for two reasons:
I can't imagine how there can be a census estimate in 2006, since this page says that there wasn't one; I could, of course, misunderstand the source, but I can't see how a 2006 number could be appropriate unless presented with a specific source.
The restaurants simply aren't that notable; this isn't Wikinews. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Great Source!, however the census was not a national census; it was one compleeted by the Logan county area itself of the City of Bellefontaine and it's surrounding villages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.13 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'd add that the addition isn't sourced. A source might have shown this to be notable; for example, if the local paper (or other verifiable source) indicated that this was a part of some kind of civic renaissance. (Then again, I'd hesitate to compare a few restaurants' opening to Pittsburgh's Renaissance.) -- SwissCelt (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bellefontaine, Ohio/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s)
Press [show] to view →
Far from GA status. Very short lead. Too many lists. Geography and Economy sections are stubs. Very few inline citations. Epbr123 11:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your comments. A short lead in an article is desirable, as per WP:LS. Geography and Economy need work, as you noted. There are inline citations, but some of these need to be converted to Reference section format. I still believe this is better than Start class, though. -- SwissCelt 12:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is a better article than Warren, Ohio, which is currently assessed as B-class. Changing assessment accordingly. -- SwissCelt 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'll change Warren, Ohio to start. Epbr123 01:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
...without leaving any comments. Again. This is getting old, Epbr123. Think you might want to abide by the Third Opinion yourself at some point? I'm sure the editors of Warren, Ohio would appreciate a hint or two. -- SwissCelt 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Last edited at 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 09:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Bellefontaine, Ohio. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Bellefontaine, Ohio. 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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bellefontaine, Ohio. 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.
