Talk:John Work House and Mill Site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article John Work House and Mill Site was a nominee for Geography and places good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on September 5, 2006.
December 8, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
User:Bedford
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] POV tag

"had the misfortune of becoming" is POV, whiny user:Bedford. You need to learn serious Wikipedia etiquette. Chris 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You were the one being whiny, throwing a tantrum about things having to be a certain way. You need the etiquette lesson.--Bedford 23:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historic buildings of Louisville

I wasn't sure about adding it either, but it is on the National Register. But don't worry about filling out the category; I've been doing a good job of that myself.--Bedford 06:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

External links are more extraneous to the article than references; therefore, they need to come after references. Why should this article be the exception when the vast majority of other articles put references first? Wikilawyering with guidelines is not as compelling as common sense. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • External links are more extraneous than references? Please document that. Also, the guideline is just that. In this case I feel that the references look better in the bottom, like footnotes - and that's common sense. I love the term wikilawyering, too bad its just an essay. --evrik (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, external links should be after references. References support everything above them, do not support the external links. Perhaps, though, you might prefer to differentiate between Notes vs. Sources/References, as some well researched historic site articles like Joseph Priestley House do. doncram (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I note the article does not source official NRHP documents that are available or potentially other sources that would describe the NRHP designation. Text and photos copies of the NRHP registration and/or NRHP inventory nomination documents are available upon request from the National Park Service. These docs are usually 10-30 pages, written by historians, include photos, diagrams, maps, and are definitive sources for much detail about the site. To obtain, send email request to nr_reference at nps.gov, expect to receive in a week or two by postal mail. This would provide a good source for the article that could address other Good Article reviewer concerns. Hope this helps, doncram (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick-failed Good Article nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA nominations process, any article with cleanup or expansion banners must be failed without an in-depth review. Also note that the nomination was not completed correctly, as a nomination was made on the candidates page, but the appropriate template was not placed here. Please remedy these before renominating. If you feel this decision was in error, you may request a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 06:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, did not realize that banner was still there. There isn't that much more about its time as a Scout Camp that's really needed. I didn't have time yet to put the GA nominee on talk page. I am now requesting reassigning.--Bedford 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you understand what reassessment means. It means you think my decision was completely wrong and that it needs to be reversed. This is pretty much impossible, as the article wasn't actually reviewed. If you've gotten rid of any quick-fail issues, then the thing to do is renominate and wait for the usual full review. VanTucky Talk 06:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's my first time doing this. Anyways, I renominated it.--Bedford 06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to be sorry. You aren't born with a knowledge of GA bureaucracy! Best of luck, VanTucky Talk 06:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to GA assessor

I just want it to be let know to whoever reviews this for GA that I plan to take pictures within the property on Tuesday, so if it would fail due to lack of pictures, put it on hold instead.--Bedford (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

The article does not meet the GA criteria at the present time, as there are still numerous issues with it.


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:
  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:

The prose could use a good copyedit, fixing things like run-on sentences (e.g. the first sentence in 'mill days'), as well as punctuation issues. There are also numerous manual of style issues; full dates should be wikilinked, several place names (like Louisville) should be linked to articles for added context, etc. Reference citations need full citation information, instead of just a URL (e.g. please put author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL was retrieved, so that if the URL ever disappears or is inaccessible, the reference can still be used to track down the source and verify it offline). The first two items in the 'legends' section have no citations, and could be construed as original research. The 'Work/Faris Cemetery' section and 'Today' are very short. There's just not a whole lot of detail here, and, particularly 'today', could be expanded with more information.

Also, with regard to section order, 'references' should appear before 'external links', not after.Y Done

The link to 'John Work House and Mill Site is at coordinates 38°28′60″N 85°37′36″W / 38.4833, -85.6267' seems redundant -- the link to the coordinates is at the very top of the page. Why is it linked again in external links?Y Done

Hope this helps improve the article. Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One of my goals is to get this to GA in 2008.--Bedford (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)