This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lakes Lake Holiday, Virginia is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has gone from a pro-lake holiday advertizement-like article, to a lake holiday-hating rant-type article...

I changed some things to make it more neutral, but this article is still full of junk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.112.132 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed two substantial amounts of text from this article as they appear to be copyright violations of [1] and [2]. For some unknown reason I can't reach those pages directly but can via the waybackmachine. Please do not restore this text. Dpmuk (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a lot of this article. Below I explain what I've removed and reasoning:

• The information on insurance ratings, cost of insurance etc as I belive this is not appropiate information for an enclyopedia.
• which basically was an attempt to tamper with civil liberties and manipulate the government for a favorable outcome for her and her cronies. as it doesn't even come close to meeting our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy.
• Lake Holiday News has posted a new item, 'SB 1489 Flops Before Even Reaching The Theater' as although not a copyvio itself it makes no sense without the copyright text I removed (discussed above).
• This functional map of the area will help locate the community and its surroundings. as there is no map (turns out it's also a copyvio of one of the sources above).
• This community has several vacant homes that have been abandoned by the home owners due to unfair HOA rules. - again a NPOV concern.
• It is presumed that 600 or less homeowners are going to pay for this pout of pocket. Most homeowners aren't paying their HOA fees now. - NPOV.
• In 1994 you could drive every where in Lake Holiday and enjoy the scenery but now it is more like an apartment complex with speed bumps, gates and signs to keep out homeowners and visitors. NPOV again.
• beach 3 is the most impossible to get to on foot but it will be a fun adventure for those who try to get there by foot with the gaint ant hills and other secrets of lake holiday - in my opinion not even close to being encloypedic style
• Eventually, the roads will be paved. Property owners can not gain access to their properties in that area of the lake by car. NPOV
• The club house is locked up and only available for special use and HOA board meetings, except for the game and excercise area. NPOV
• The whole beach section. The bits on beaches 2 and 3 suffer from lack of NPOV and read more like personal commentry and so isn't in an encloypedia style. Without these bits the rest of the section makes little sense.
• (formerly Witacre, Virginia|Va.Post Office) this was so unclear what was meant I couldn't re-write it.
• Removed ski bit as it refers to beaches no longer mentioned, is in bad English and anyway is unsources.
• Removed the Miller's run picture as it's very poor quality and doens't illustrate it very well.
• Removed the other picture as it, in my opinion, doesn't add anything that isn't already portrayed by the imagine in the infobox.
• Removed the Previously known as "The Summit"paragraph as largely duplicating the lede although I merged some stuff into the lede. I didn't merge "The Summit" bit into the lede as it's unreferenced and it's inclear what it refers to (a town / hill / something else) so didn't know how to merge it.
• Removed Homeowners, owners of buildable Lots, and owners of Membership Lots have been billed assessments by the Association. as it's unclear what these assements are and without the copyright text it's unclear what membership lots and buildable lots are.

Dpmuk (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made here to this article are inconsistent. Why is it that the content that was previously posted was not acceptable when a similar entry for another location had the same type of content and THAT is not touched. [[3]]

Take a look at that and the content that was just removed from the entry. If this is going to be an entry about the lake itself, then take out all the parts regarding the community, but if it going to be about the community, then let the previous entry stand.

12.165.220.82 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which although not so relevant to this situation does explain the general wikipedia concept is that just because something else is that way doesn't mean this should be. I think that article needs work as well.
• Secondly I think you'd be wise to read WP:COI. I believe you have a conflict of interest and so it would be best if you did not edit this article. I've also tried to remove the more negative stuff from the article as well.
• Thirdly, large chunks of the text was copied directly from [4] and so we can not accept it as it appears to be a copyright violation. If you own the copyright please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and related pages to see what you can do to donate the text - although in this instance it may not be worth the effort as the text suffers from other problems ans till may not be accepted.
• Finally the text introduced is to promotional and contains peacock words (which the other article you cite also suffers from). For example " 800 single-family homes that sit on beautiful, mountain, wooded lots" does not meet our neutral point of view policy - it's too promotional. Dpmuk (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not seem to upload a document from the County of Frederick to help verify the timeline of the filling of the lake in 1972. It can be found through public records at http://www.co.frederick.va.us/Home/ShowDocument?id=4727 If someone knows how to upload (if it can be) as a reference, please do.

Deanbug1 (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Deanbug1[reply]