Talk:Agritopia

Started Cleanup / Needs further review

Hi all, I've done a bit of cleanup on the article, and added some requests for citations / explanation. Have neutralized language and added a criticism section. If anyone could come along and review I'd appreciate it. Though I wasn't the one that originally wrote the article, I won't be the one to remove the promotional banner without outside feedback. Let me know if you have any questions. All the best - CSGinger14 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Update, I've removed the promotional banner after finding proper citation and removing material that's explicitly promotional. I've also nominated the article for GA status, as I can't seem to find much else that can be said about the topic, and coverage seems to be broad and well researched.

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14: Just a heads up, you should resolve any inline cleanup tags before a review gets started. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: CSGinger14 (talk · contribs) 04:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs) 17:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Status as of 12/24/2025

@CSGinger14: Hello, I am going to be reviewing this article against the GA standards. However, the current state of the article is arguably a WP:STUB, which would disqualify the article from GA review. While the word count is above 300 words - a standard for identifying stubs used by WP:DYK, and myself - the article has some significant areas of 'fluff' that are not encyclopedic: the Neighborhood Farm section, which lists common American farm vegetables not unique to the community; and the list of businesses featured by Food Network, which I believe goes outside the purview of summary style for such an otherwise short article.

Given that this is your first foray into GA, I want to extend the opportunity to build out the article before I continue the review. After all, I only got into GA review myself recently, and I want to show the same courtesy I've been given by my peers. As such, this review will be On hold until January 1st, 2026. Please don't hesitate to ask any questions! — chickenpox4dinner (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Chickenpox4dinner, thanks so much for your willingness to review! You're right that this is my first GA nomination, so I'll admit that I'm a little bit out of my depth. You make several reasonable points that I'll review when able, which may happen quickly or closer to the 1st depending on how long I perceive it will take and, depending on that outcome, how much work I'm able to complete over the next several days of the holiday.

I'll make my case that this is a good example of the Croughton-London rule in regards to your opinion that this article is only of stub quality. Based on the comprehensive, reputable sourcing which can be found on the topic, what has been cited is about all that exists. There may be room for background that hasn't been elaborated (i.e the growth of the Phoenix suburbs, community farming initiatives, Gilbert, etc.), but otherwise what's provided on the subject itself is about all that can be genuinely and justifiably sourced.

I'm a bit torn on whether I agree with you about the Food Network sources. For an article of this length, that's really about all that exists in reference to the community, and I'd argue that for a community of this size, notable locations would be worthy of inclusion. My agreement with your point comes down less to WP:Summary than to the potential for it to violate WP:Promote. However, I think that the fact that the businesses have received significant coverage that would likely appear towards the top of search results for anyone that researched the topic outside of Wikipedia justifies it, but I'd leave it up to your judgement.

Regarding the farm produce point, I suspect there are few places that could be said to uniquely grow any kind of produce, unless their uniqueness in that regard comes from the fact that they exclusively grow a specific variety or are well known for advances in the cultivation of any number of crops. It does seem redundant though, so again I'd leave it up to your judgement with the points above under consideration.

Unfortunately I don't have access to an Architectural Digest subscription, so am unable to take anything more from that article than what was provided previously by another editor. It seems to be up for debate whether a Distractify article I found that was recently published on the community is considered reliable, so might appreciate your assistance in answering that question. I'll wait for your word, but I thank you again for your assistance with the review, and wish you a happy holiday (and Merry Christmas, since we've now reached the day itself). Best wishes, and looking forward to your response!

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment — for what it's worth, I think this is a fairly legitimate invocation of the Croughton-London rule. Take a look at Ýdalir and its GA reassessment. User:chickenpox4dinner, it's up to you to decide whether you think there's more that could be written about Agritopia. If there really is nothing, then take an easy short review and run :) JustARandomSquid (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14: Thank you for the holiday wishes, I wish you the same! Also, appreciate the depth of response: I wasn't that familiar with the Croughton-London heuristic. I decided to research Agritopia further, and found some additional sourcing that I hope rounds out the article. I think with the new content giving some more background to both the restaurants and farm activities, I'm not really worried about it being a stub anymore. As such, review is underway below.

GA review

Last updated: 15:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC) by Johnson524

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) 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, as shown by a source spot-check

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) 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)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

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

5) Stable:

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

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

All references check out, no WP:SYNTH. Media is great, I did a little CSS crop on the sign for focus but checks out otherwise. Per the previous discussion, while this is a niche subject, the article is not a stub and a quick copyedit pass addressed my only broadness concerns.

Right now, I have two action items for you: first, to review the copyedit pass to ensure personal voice/catch anything I missed; and second, I would encourage a slight rewrite of the Criticisms section: the name itself is a word to watch that might be overstating the point. If you disagree that's no real issue, it's just my last sticking point. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Chickenpox4dinner, we should be golden now. I'd do one more review, but I've found just about everything I think can be added. Hope you're doing well!

CSGinger14 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You really nailed it with that last edit pass, well done. This article definitely fulfills the GA criteria, and I will promote it now. Congrats, and glad to see you're already working on the next one! chickenpox4dinner (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Short lead

@CSGinger14: Is there any way the lead of the article can be expanded? It's particularly short for a Good Article, and leaves out virtually all information from the history and commentary sections described in the body. Cheers! Johnson524 18:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Johnson524, just added another paragraph, though unfortunately I think that's as much expansion as can be done. Sorry it took so long, thanks!

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 it looks so much better, thank you! Johnson524 15:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)