# Talk:Bethlehem, Georgia

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bethlehem, Georgia. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bethlehem, Georgia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 19:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! This is my first review, so please bear with me. I will likely finish reviewing today and will leave comments below. I will have a general comments section as well as specific comments organized heading by heading. Please mark each section with  Done to note that you have completed them. I will make small edits as I read through. Grk1011 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


### General -  Done
Make sure refs are at the end of the sentence, unless there is mid-sentence punctuation.
 Partly done - Per below. Some have been retained as the specific words or phrases are being verified rather than the whole sentence. I'm not aware of anything requiring the reference to be added only after punctuation, only that when it is added at punctuation that it be added after the mark and not before it. Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags says only If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. See for example Reference 126 on Manchester, a FA. References are typically placed at the end of the sentence, but I am unaware of any part of the MoS that mandates that.
I wonder if it would be helpful to pull the Christmas information into one section instead of having it split between "History", "Economy", and "Arts and culture" (suggestion).
The current structure follows WP:USCITIES, which I think makes sense because the Christmas theme permeates throughout the different topics covered by various sections.
Any photos available?
Unfortunately, no. I even checked compatible Flickr images and couldn't find anything.


### Lead and infobox -  Done
The lead doesn't appear to fully summarize the article (it's a bit short). Can you pull up some additional information from the article's body?
 Done I did add a bit to the lede, it's still short because it's in keeping with WP:USCITIES and a lot of the points in the article itself aren't unique to Bethlehem enough to warrant including it in the lede (like most cities in the US have a government, education, media, and roads).
Rewrite the first sentence of the second paragraph so as to not use two "with" clauses
 Done
Suggest that the last sentence be placed before the Christmas theme comments to better introduce the relevance of it
 Done
Update the ref in the Infobox following Area (which is currently the 2010 census). This could then also be used to source the population data. The values for area also appear to use different units, can you clarify?
 Done - Though I'm not sure what you mean by the values for area using different units? If you mean "sq mi" as opposed to "km2" that's how Wikipedia itself formats those through the infobox and convert template.


### History -  Done
The ref says Bethlehem United Methodist Church. Is the omission of United intentional in this article?
I don't have access to the book (ref 6) that verifies the statement but I'm almost positive it says Bethlehem Methodist Church, since that's what it was called at the time it was founded (Bethlehem Methodist Church is much older than the town of Bethlehem. In fact, the town was named after the church in 1884... It was later renamed Bethlehem United Methodist Church which was its name in 1936 (at the time that reference 7 was written) if that's what you're referring to, and is now Bethlehem First United Methodist Church but it was founded as simply "Bethlehem Methodist Church" the name changes came later.
"The church later opened" - Consider removing later as you just used it in the prior sentence
 Done
Combine the 4th and 5th sentences
 Done
Move ref 8 to the end of the sentence
 Done
Move refs 7 and 10 to the end of the sentence
 Not done Per above; those references are specific to those pieces of information
The second paragraph feels like it refers back to something that should have already been explained in the first paragraph (the origins of the name).
The first sentence predates the establishment of the town, the second paragraph is about that establishment; the name was not given until said establishment.
Wikilink Gwinnett and Jackson counties
 Done
Move refs 14 and 15 to the end of the sentence
 Not done - Per above
Can you add an additional ref to the racial conflict sentence?
 Question:   - Is there something about the reference currently there that does not verify the statement?
From the historical population table, it seems there was a large increase in population in the 1990s. It would be interested to know why/how. (This is optional, I'm just intrigued)
I wish I knew, nothing I came across when researching sources for this article gave any indication.


### Geography -  Done
Add additional information on its location, such as where in Georgia it is. The average reader won't know where Barrow County is. It's really up to you for what's best, but what comes to my mind is how far from Atlanta?
 Done - I added statements and refs showing where Bethlehem is in relation to the two closest major cities of Athens and Atlanta.
Are there any notable ponds, lakes, mountains, etc?
 No - I can't stress enough how far from anything relevant this place is. You know that scene in O Brother, Where Art Thou? where Ulysses complains that the place he's at is a geographical oddity, two weeks from everywhere? There are no nearby landmarks of note outside of the very small bodies of water covered in Bethlehem, Georgia#Utilities which are small enough that if they weren't water sources they wouldn't even be worth mentioning anywhere in the article as they aren't relevant to this city outside of that aspect. Sources certainly don't make mention of them as nearby places of interest in any capacity.


### Demographics -  Done
Is the 2022 population estimate available to mention as well? I've seen it on other city/town articles.
 Not done In cities above a certain population those estimates are generally available, but from what I recall when I looked, Bethlehem falls far below that cutoff.
Refs 28 and 29 are generic links to the Census website. Are there more precise, targeted links available?
 Not done Unfortunately there is not which is frustrating, but those are the kind of links I've had to use in other city GAs like Ball Ground, Georgia and Buford, Georgia. The Census website can't link to specific data points in that way.


### Economy -  Done
Same issue with ref 29 not bringing the reader to the information
As per above, this is unfortunately as specific a URL as can be retrieved
Ref 34 specifies "Greetings from Bethlehem". Is there a reason you left that bit out?
 Done Not all of the stamps say "Greetings" but unfortunately that bit of knowledge appears to be WP:OR on my part as I can't find a source that verifies that, so I have added the greetings part in.
I'd suggest splitting up the first sentence so that the message and cancelation mark are mentioned together. I assume that mail gets both?
 Question:   - I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean by splitting the sentence so that the message and cancelation mark are mentioned together, could you elaborate on what "the message" is and how splitting the sentence would combine them?
Avoid using many people
 Done Reworded
Ref 32 has some numbers that might be of interest to the reader to help grasp the impact of this postal tradition
Those numbers would be redundant with reference 34's numbers
Move the second use of ref 32 to the end of the sentence
 Done
The "Christmas Greetings from Bethlehem" bit appears repetitive, though it explains the above comment I had
I agree it's repetitive but it's repetitive at the post office level not just via the writing; that is a rubber stamp that is different than the cancellation mark but has the same message so placing that rubber stamp's mark will potentially make it so that it says a variation of "Greetings from Bethlehem" on the mail twice.
The last paragraph seems a bit out of place. When did the tradition start? The first two paragraphs speak to the current situation and are followed by the past/origins. It doesn't flow right.
I added some context to the beginning of the third paragraph in that section and added ref 33 which verifies that 1967 is when that tradition began. Hopefully that fixes the flow


### Arts and culture -  Done
Move refs 5 and 8 to end of sentence
 Done


### Parks and recreation -  Done
Suggest merging this stub section into "Geography" section
 Not done - This is the layout per WP:USCITIES and is similar in structure and size to other city GAs


### Government -  Done
Suggest merging this stub section into "History" section
 Not done - Per the parks and rec response above


### Education -  Done
Move ref 52 to end of sentence
 Not done - Per above, that reference verifies only that specific school rather than the sentence as a whole
What grades did Snodon serve?
 Done - Added that information with accompanying ref


### Media -  Done
legal organ: I don't know this term and it's not mentioned in the target article even though it is a redirect to it.
 Done - Added an explanatory parenthetical; that term was explained in that target article at some point, but it looks like it was removed unfortunately.


### Infrastructure -  Done
Refs 62 and 63 to end of sentences
 Done
Ref 65 is a list of street names, but it doesn't call out specifically which names are nativity-related. A bit WP:OR here.
 Done - Removed list.
Ref 71 to end of sentence
 Done
Does the town have a sewer system or is it largely septic-based? Provide some context to the mayor's statement.
The statement isn't about the existing structure, but that there is no growth because there is no additional infrastructure in place to support that growth.


### Notable people -  Done
What are the inclusion criteria for this list?
Like with other such lists on city articles, the criteria is that it can be verified that they are born or reside in the city.


### References -  Done
77 references but only 73 "retrieved" dates. Add missing.
Archived links = good
Reminder about comments above regarding census refs
Ref 1- link US Census Bureau
Ref 26 - needs publisher
Ref 27 - needs publisher
Ref 53 - needs publisher
Ref 74 - needs publisher
 Not done - I will address these at some point, but please note that these are not part of the GA criteria. Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable elaborates with one of the "mistakes to avoid" that says Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.


### Discussion
 On hold - And that'll do it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ping when ready. Grk1011 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Grk1011: Thanks for taking the time to review this. I've addressed the points above, though I had a couple of questions and some things were not done as they are not GA criteria or otherwise could not be done (like the census ref). - Aoidh (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Thanks for making these changes so quickly! I made a couple more edits during my read-through which I hope further improve the article as well. Please read through it once more for a copy edit. I won't comment above on the specific changes that you made, but great job overall with the improvements! I will pass this, but I do still have the remaining comments, which are all optional and non-GA-related:
1) I would still recommend combining the 2 stub sections ("parks and recreation" and "government") into "History" or elsewhere. The WP:USCITIES header states that it's "just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing". With those sections having little potential for future growth, I believe the article will feel more complete without the stubs. (obviously optional still).
2) Which comment in the Reference section were you not able to do?
3) Perhaps add one more sentence to the lead that includes the year of "settling", the town's founding or some sort of date. Grk1011 (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 Pass Grk1011 (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)