Template:Did you know nominations/Pere Marquette Lumber Company

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pere Marquette Lumber Company

Source 1 Hotchkiss, page=249 "In 1883 this company engaged in the manufacture of salt and now make about 90,000 barrels a year."
Source 2 Bersey, page= 104 "The Pere Marquette Lumber Company ranks among the largest salt and lumber producers of the State."
Created by Doug Coldwell (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen () 13:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, something odd is going on here. I found the page with the quote, and at the top of the page it clearly says p. 104. I coped the ulr address here, yet when I click on in page 84 comes up. Can't figure. Anyway. The citation is good. I'll finish up the review within the next day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Article is new enough and hook is within limits. However, while the two sources for the hook cover the large quantities of salt and lumber produced, they don't seem to support the idea that the company was among the largest such producers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers Thanks for the prompt review. Huh? Perhaps you missed it. The second quoted source says exactly that. "The Pere Marquette Lumber Company ranks among the largest salt and lumber producers of the State." [Emphasis added.] 7&6=thirteen () 21:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The source given for the hook says Bersey 1890, p. 84. The statement about the "the largest salt and lumber producers..." is found on p. 104 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, something odd is going on here. I found the page with the quote, and at the top of the page it clearly says p. 104. I copied the ulr address to here, yet when I click on the url link here page 84 comes up. Can't figure. Anyway. The citation is good. I'll finish up the review within the next day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
There may be a difference between the pagination in google and the pagination in the hard copy of the book. User:Doug Coldwell was working from the hard copy, I think. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 22:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I changed the reference in the article to 104. Sorry for he confusion. Are we GTG? 7&6=thirteen () 22:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The article looks g2g, however, I was only a few minutes into the review when this issue came up. Let me go through it more thoroughly, just to make sure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I corrected all of those page links in the article. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen () 22:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Article is new enough, long enough, and hook is interesting and within limits. Images are in the P.D. No dup links. Other than general titles, no close paraphrasing detected with Earwig's dup detector. Some pages in the Nagle, (2015) source are not viewable, however, will AGF on those citations. You might want to expand the lede a bit. In any case, the article/nomination is Good to Go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


References