Talk:Hancock, Michigan

Hancock, Michigan 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
December 8, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Finland B‑class Low‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I read and reviewed the article assessing it for GA status. I would not recommend it at this time for a number of reasons. Items to correct:

Online references should utilize this format: <ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = }}</ref>

The article should have some references from hard-copy published materials (books, magazines, newspapers)
British spelling is included (since this a geography article in the U.S., American spelling should consistently be used)
All red links should be fixed (create an article or remove wikilink)
Some grammar issues
The article would benefit from a city infobox
A GA should have at least one good photograph, particularly for a city - this shouldn't be hard to do.
Between a number and a unit (e.g. 7.4 km²) there should be a (& n b s p ;) rather than a space.
What do Ripley and Franklin Mine have to do with Education?
add a References section (like this:

===References===

For examples of most of these items, see Minnetonka, Minnesota (although Minnetonka is missing hard references and has red links too) Appraiser 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Finnish street signs edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There was a strange undo by PeeKoo recently: this diff. The relevant sentence was changed by an anonymous IP from:

"Due to the large number of Finnish immigrants, many street signs in Hancock are, as of 2007, printed in both English and their Finnish names."

to

"Due to the large number of Finnish immigrants, many street signs in Hancock are, as of 2009, printed in both English and their Finnish names."

(emphasis mine). PeeKoo's revert message was "sourceless, clearly false info". What really confuses me is -- why would this be sourceless and false in 2009, but perfectly ok in 2007? Incidentally, the street signs are still in both English and Finnish -- the signs went up quite a while ago and have stayed up. So, changing 2007 to 2009 is perfectly correct. (I have reverted the undo, so we're back to 2009 again). References are easily found, such as Hunt's Guide, and plenty of photos around the web. -- dcclark (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

On my talk page, I replied as follows: "I'm not a native English speaker, but I interpret that "as of 2009" would mean that the Finnish street signs came in 2009, so they weren't there last year, for example."

Apparently, someone else has made the same interpretation, because in the reference you're linking to, it says: "Since there have been a large number of Finnish immigrants in the city many street signs in Hancock are printed in both English and the Finnish names. This has been started in 2007."'

But I guess the signs did come even earlier, so this sentence should be rephrased in the article. --PeeKoo (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Having an exact start date would be better, I agree. However, I think that the usual interpretation of "as of 2009" is that "currently, this is how things are", not "this is when things began to be this way." -- dcclark (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

A pticure was posted as a citation for this satement. Is this a valid reference ? Although the sign in the picture appears to be in both English and Finnish, there is no inidcation that it is actually from Hancock.Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

What's really frustrating to me is that I see these signs every day (I live next door to Hancock). I have no clue how to provide a better reference though -- someone can always question it. -- dcclark (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hancock, Michigan. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 18:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic