Bean Station, Tennessee was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bean Station, Tennessee. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
User:AppalachianCentrist has been adding the word "controversy" to a section about Bean Station's sewers. Nothing suggests this topic meets the criteria of a controversy outlined at WP:CRIT, and the sources cited only say elected officials have been reluctant to install new sewers due to the cost. Not sure what the controversy is. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The topic of installing a wastewater treatment system in the town is considered controversial due to the often heated political discussion the topic brings. This is supported by a statement regarding the issue of delaying its construction from the town's former mayor: [1]
"Every system in this town has failed us. Businesses are leaving because of no sewer. You can’t attract anything without a sewer. We could have been way ahead. It’s nothing but a political ruse to try to do this. The grant has already been established, it’s already been awarded, the avenue to get the money to match the grant is available."
The engineering report in the tab also lists the need for wastewater treatment: [2]
"Many of the existing ST/DF (septic tank/drain field) systems in the Town are failing. Such
failures are apparent by the “surfacing” of waste on the ground surface. Sufficient area must be set aside for a back-up system after the original system ceases to properly operate. However, failure may not occur until after several years of operation. In many cases, the areas that were set aside for backup are used for other purposes. Many property owners are left with no option to construct additional drain field lines. As such, a public sewer system is the only option to eliminate the failing ST/DF system... As previously indicated, the Town has long considered the need for a public sewer system
due to the number of failing septic tank/drain field systems. Town officials also know their ability to attract businesses and create jobs are limited without a public sewer system."
-- AppalachianCentrist ( talk) 17:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Thanks, -- AppalachianCentrist ( talk) 15:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
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.
I am nominating this article for reassessment predominantly over prose concerns. Specifically, the massive overuse and misuse of the word "would". Would is a future tense word, yet it is frequently misused to describe past tense actions. Sentences such as The tavern, being popular with politicians while campaigning or traveling across the country, would provide heated encounters with political rivals who would stay at the tavern as well.
and The Peavine Railroad would end service in 1928, and the lines would be either demolished or washed out following the inundation of the Holston River by the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1942.
are exceptionally poorly written and do not meet GA standards as I understand them. Consider also the extreme example of The accident is considered one of the deadliest and worst traffic collisions in the history of the state of Tennessee. The collision, the deadliest in state history...
It is clear to me this article needs a fundamental rewrite.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk) 01:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Update - Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, Hog Farm - It took longer than I thought (I almost forgot), but I have made a bunch of other improvements to pretty much every section. However, I'm on the fence about !voting to keep or delist. I would like to hear everyone else's opinion about whether or not any additional improvements are needed. Bneu2013 ( talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)