Talk:Hammock camping

Maintaining neutrality in listing commercial hammock suppliers.

I seem to sense a bias towards DD Hammocks here. Noticing they are listed first and are the only company linked in the references concerns me as it relates to fairness with other suppliers. My proposal is to remove DD Hammocks from the links (all of these commercial suppliers are readily found at Hammock Forums) and then include a link to Hammock Forums' 'Manufacturers and Services' page. http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2. In addressing the order of appearance I propose listing the two most popular brands (Hennessey and Warbonnet) alphabetically followed by the other manufacturers following alphabetically.--Canadiandy talk 01:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair proposal to me.MilkStraw532 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 02:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead fails to summarise the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are two references, one with an apparently invalid ISBN, the other apparently published by a hammock manufacturer.

   Only two paragraphs are referenced. The majority of statements are completely uncited

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Appears to be a POV article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a quick-fail due primarily to lack of referencing, non-neutral point of view. Please read and comprehend the good article criteria before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response to GAN fail.

@Jezhotwells. Thanks, this is helpful for us in improving the article. I still think Speer's "Hammock Camping..." text is neutral based on its publication date predating any serious commercialization of hammock camping and also the reality that it has served as pretty much the only text on the subject for years. Kind of the HC bible for many. And this from a guy who has never purchased a Speer product.

@all. I have now fixed one of the ISBN links, added a third book reference (Baden-Powell), and added a couple sentences in the lead to reference the sections on commercial manufacturers as well as suspension and amenities. I know we still have a ways to go, but I'm not giving up on this article. There is a large community of HC enthusiasts and I think this makes this a worthy topic for WP.

--Canadiandy talk 06:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)