This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota 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.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, User:Bkissin and User:Prairie7, IMHO this article is good and should be accepted into mainspace. It asserts significance of the topic, thereby addressing one potential reason that an article in mainspace might be "PRODed" for quick deletion (which didn't happen here). It includes referencing to two sources, and the two sources appear to support all (or nearly all, i haven't 100 percent checked every detail) the information in the article. Including that it is the only example of its type of Lustron house in South Dakota, which is covered in the 1998 National Register nomination document. And something about the house's forced air heating system, addressing a typical defect/inadequacy of original Lustron homes' design. For an article to be acceptable in Wikipedia mainspace, it is NOT required that its sources be online; books and National Register documents and other sources may be perfectly reliable and acceptable while only being available in hard-copy, and even if they have only been consulted by one editor. It happens, though, that the National Register document is available online here for the text and here for the two accompanying photos from 1998 that are part of the submission. I certainly believe User:Prairie7 that they had access to the permit which is also cited. And the photo included in the article is an additional source, showing what the house looks like now (note that photos are acceptable in Wikipedia as sources as a kind of exception to the general "no original research" policy, because they so obviously provide clear information). So, while the article can be improved (like all articles) I think this article should be immediately returned to mainspace. I myself would be happier editing/improving the article there. And further, I note that the removal of this article from mainspace to draftspace completely eliminated all of editor Prairie7's contributions from mainspace, which is unfortunate and should be remedied immediately.
By the way, Prairie7, I am a very experienced editor in the topic area of National Register-listed places, and Bkissin is a very experienced editor in evaluating mainspace acceptability of National Register topic articles submitted within the wp:AFC system. Bkissin, although they did choose to "decline to accept" this article for mainspace, is not unsympathetic, and is in fact supportive of getting this and similar articles into mainspace, which is reflected in part by their contacting me to take a look at this article and to help develop it. In this case, though, I think they are incorrect in not accepting it for mainspace already, as I have addressed above. Bkissin, could you please accept this article now, and/or explain your perspective here?
