Talk:National Register of Historic Places

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Register of Historic Places article.
Article policies
Good article National Register of Historic Places has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
To-do list for National Register of Historic Places: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 - July 2005


Contents

[edit] GA nom

I have nominated this for GA, it will be an opportunity for more feedback as I continue the push toward FA for this most important article. IvoShandor 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff to do

This is a compilation checklist from the peer review and other commenters. It's easier to add here than the to-do list because the concerns are rather specific. Most of this will need to be clarified before FA.

  • N Not doneDouble check to see if you need to be so specific in some sections (particularly incentives and nominations.
  • N Not doneThoroughly copyedit this article for grammar, typos, jargon and, most importantly, for flow.
  • Copyeditors (please sign below if you give this a good copy edit, or even a partial one, please note the sections you edited)
  • N Not done Lead: Is it clear, and is it a good summary?
  • N Not done Look for sneaky POV descriptors.

IvoShandor 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion to do

  • N Not done Impetus
  • N Not done Budget
  • N Not done Plaques
  • N Not done Grants
  • N Not done Structure
  • N Not done Updated Numbers

I don't think we should think about FA until this stuff is added and any kinks noted elsewhere on this page are also worked out. I do think we will easily get GA, maybe a few minor problems but nothing an on hold period wouldn't be able to address. IvoShandor 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A couple questions

Where did the 30k added per year thing in the lead come from? I looked for it later in the article, but didn't see it mentioned or referenced. Also, the criticism section lists a few critics and uses a block quote for one of them, but doesn't say who the critics are, outside of the names, or why the reader should trust their opinions / criticism. I don't need a full biography, but they have no wiki-links on them so I think they need a small intro, like Stephen Mikesell, a noted blah blah blah holding a PhD in blah says.... or something more reader friendly. --Dual Freq 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems odd that the only criticisms cited are 20 years old. There may be more recent issues and/or criticism related to administration of the program. --Parkwells 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Roger that, thanks for the feedback Dual, as always you are most helpful. I didn't realize the 30K didn't have a ref but its one of those used already so it'll be easy to add. IvoShandor 06:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The Weekly Update [1] goes back 10 years. Isn't there a way to send a bot or something to count all the properties listed during that time period(provided they haven't been removed) and create an average?Einbierbitte 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea but I have no clue about such things. IvoShandor 19:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

I have reviewed the article and believe it meets criteria at WP:WIAGA. I could find overall, very little to improve though I do have a few suggestions.

  • overall the article seems very technical, like some passages were obviosuly a direct cut of the original text, not that I can substantiate the claim but the article does have a very technical, drawn out length. Considering this article is long, I would suggest that experienced editors go over and attempt to rewrite/make more concise some of the passages.
  • the lead didnt exactly make me go wow or anything - not that it should but I just felt that maybe a few examples of some of the more famous places on the register would give it a bit more depth. More over, the lead at the moment seems a bit technical. Anyway thats just a thought.
  • the section Multiple Property Submission felt a bit technical as well, wordy etc - perhaps this could be made more concise?

Other than that everything else fine - images ok, article broad enough etc. Good work to all those who contributed.LordHarris 00:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns are something I, and others, have been struggling with. I don't know if I can address them effectively, however, as I have attempted to in the past. I will try to enlist the help of some of the others at the NRHP project. Thanks again LordHarris. IvoShandor 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Monument note

I added "some" before "National Monument" in the article, with an explanatory footnote. Only NMs that are historical in character and administered by the NPS are automatically listed on the Register. Natural NMs, such as Buck Island Reef National Monument are not listed, even though they are NPS sites. Likewise, historical NMs such as President Lincoln and Soldiers' Home National Monument are not administratively listed on the Register, if they are not NPS sites (although that particular NM is part of a prior NR listing, but it was not automatically added as a separate listing). — Eoghanacht talk 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notes on To Do List picture request

Regarding the request for "an image of the building the NRHP is adminstrated from, provided they have their own building." From what I've found they're located at 1201 Eye St., NW in D.C. This is not their own building; in a brief search I found other National Park Service programs, some folks from the Dept of the Interior and a consulting firm. Xstolix 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what they told me in an email too, so I think you got the building. It's probably not even worth adding but if you have a pic feel free to add it, at some point I will be working on this article again and going for FA. IvoShandor 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note needs written

The four states with the most properties on the National Register are New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Kentucky.[1]

  1. ^ http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/COLUMNISTS04/705200473

[edit] Commercial site trying to look like the real thing

I deleted the www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com from External Links, as it looks as if they are trying to make money by presenting themselves as the official US government website. It's misleading and language on the site is semi-literate. --Parkwells 18:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors Using Commercial Site Wanna-be rather than Official Website

In other articles I've noticed editors making errors by listing the above commercial site as an External Link. This is NOT the Official Website of the National Register of Historic Places (http://www.nps.gov/nr/), which is run by the National Park Service and Federal government. It makes it look as if Wikipedia doesn't know the difference. The commercial site is trying to make money by offering a tie-in linked to an official government symbol.

I don't know if there is some "Find" copy editing that can be done, but this might be a widespread problem. --Parkwells 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed it occasionally as well, I remove it where I see it. I dont think nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com is reliable enough to be used for a source, they still have long demolished sites listed and though there are errors in the NRIS database, they are fewer than the NRHP.com commercial site that sees a lot of link traffic. IvoShandor 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your assessment of the site as "trying to make money of a tie in" or whatever is incorrect, I don't see a single ad anywhere in that site, never have. There isn't anything wrong with including the site as an external link, it was clearly marked as unofficial. Please offer some proof of your accusations or I will revert your change. IvoShandor 23:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
So in summary, I remove it as a source, but your implying this is a spam link, I see no evidence of this. IvoShandor 23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I found one commercial link, "Top ten Inns" in lieu of travel information. I still don't think this qualifies it as a spam site, and I am wondering what your issue with this is. IvoShandor 23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Never seemed like a spam site to me. No pop-ups, an ad on a page here and there, doesn't seem like a problem. The information on it has always appeared to be accurate, if not updated. But the official site doesn't add the newer listings into the general database, so they're not always great at updating either. Also seems to be the only place where specific historic district info (acreage, # of buildings, etc) is listed. I've not found that even on the official gov't site. I use it as a reference, actually, b/c it goes to a specific page. You can't direct link to an entry on the official site, at least not so far as I've found. My two cents. -Ebyabe 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no links directly to the listing on the official site. Perhaps my references removal is a bit of conclusion jumping on my part. I should say I really only do it with Illinois because the SHPO has all those little details, ref number, acerage etc, listed for Illinois. IvoShandor 23:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drop the criticisms?

The article states "The shortcomings of the NHPA are obvious when historic properties are destroyed....". I don't think that a demolition or two proves any such thing. The NRHP program does not absolutely protect properties, it just provides a framework for Federal tax incentives, for Federal and other monitoring and scrutiny, and for local and state zoning and other regulation. As I added to the article, Colorado is a state which explicitly does not protect NRHPs and emphasizes owners can demolish them. In the case of the example given, the Jobbers Canyon Historic District in downtown Omaha, Nebraska that was demolished in 1987, there is evidence to me that the program was working, in fact. As noted, the NRHP designation caused there to be a big to-do when the corporation announced its plans, so the NRHP program served its purpose by making it a public issue. There were big dollars and big public issues at stake that were debated, and an outcome happened that didn't please everyone. Outcomes where demolitions are prevented also hurt some property owners and other parties, too. At least this case was debated, and local governments had an opportunity to come up with funding or creative ideas to save the district, perhaps unlike if the area was not listed as an NRHP.

It could be that those buildings were indeed ugly and crummy and ought to have been demolished to let something else happen there. No one could seriously advocate that there never-ever should be a demolition of an NRHP. A more heavy-handed regulation program would have serious drawbacks. Most likely, a program with stricter protections would never be allowed to attain the broad reach that NRHP has. A Canadian program described in national landmark article, for example, never really got off the ground, perhaps due to the extent of protection proposed for one of the first sites it included.

The other stated criticisms given are from old articles, and it seems unfair to state them here. It does seem likely that early NRHP and NHL designations were more political and less balanced. But the NRHP program has run broad theme studies and multiple property submission studies since the 1980s, expressly to provide balance, and the old articles don't address that. The quote restated in a side-box is especially critical and seems to me unjustified. Also, where is the National Park Service or other response to the criticism? This just seems like a one-sided, unfair criticism.

I'd prefer to see the entire Criticism section dropped, unless it can be radically rewritten with new sources and some "fair and balanced" perspective. Right now it is not encyclopedic in tone. doncram (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to reword this. The article has passed through three separate review processes and no one raised any issue with the article's neutrality or tone. Perhaps you are letting personal bias sneak in? I am as much a supporter of the NRHP as anyone but the fact of the matter is there exists significant criticism of the program and its criteria, to not include that would be non-neutral. I would invite you to help collaborate to improve the wording and title of the section but I think dropping the information altogether would violate WP:NPOV IvoShandor (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)