Talk:Kitch-iti-kipi

Copyright issues

I noticed that there is text on this page lifted directly from Hunt's Guide. Specificially, the pronunciation is a word for word copy. This should be redone in IPA at any rate.

A further suggestion would be to expand on the format of the references by using the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates to standardize how the information is presented. For instance, for the M-35, I used the format:

{{cite book |author=Hunt, Mary and Hunt, Don | chapter=Negaunee — Lucy Hill Naturbahn Luge |date=2007 |title=Hunt's Guide to Michigan's Upper Peninsula |publisher= Midwestern Guides |location=[[Albion, MI]] |url= http://hunts-upguide.com/ |chapterurl= http://hunts-upguide.com/negaunee_lucy_hill_naturbahn_luge.html | accessdate=2008-05-11 }}

This produces:

Hunt, Mary and Hunt, Don (2007). "Negaunee — Lucy Hill Naturbahn Luge". Hunt's Guide to Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Albion, MI: Midwestern Guides. Retrieved 2008-05-11. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

as one of the references used from Hunt's Guide. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me anytime! Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent ideas and did replace references using {{cite web}}. Also changed wording of the pronunciation of the word. Do you believe that the way I have it worded now will not violate any copyrights on the pronunciation?--Doug ^talk 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I replaced three of them. The one DNR Fisheries source is from a journal and Hunt's Guide is a book, albeit the online edition of the print book. The state park source is a Google Books version of a print source, so I converted that to {{cite book}} as well. The pronunciation should be rendered in IPA, but that's outside of my expertise on here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. Now I see better how to use the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates. I don't understand the IPA language pronunciation however, since this is not my expertise. I did meanwhile ask the Language reference desk and they came up with /ˌkɪtʃɪtiˈkɪpi/, or possibly /ˈkɪtʃɪtiˌkɪpi/, besides the explained pronunciation already there. If you feel comfortable with these additional pronunciations maybe you could edit accordingly. I have no idea how that might properly be worded. --Doug ^talk 11:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kitch-iti-kipi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415235220/http://www.uppermichiganwaterfalls.com/Kitchitikipi.html to http://www.uppermichiganwaterfalls.com/Kitchitikipi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kitch-iti-kipi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 01:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In lead: The name means "big cold spring" in what language? Clarify.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Similarly, which Native Americans called it "The Mirror of Heaven"? Do they still?  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) In 'Raft': When did the CCC construct the raft?  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC) In 'Native American legends', In the second story re: honey, who is "they"? Clarify.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC) The third story re: tamarack uses passive voice and is unclear who is doing the grinding of bark, etc. Rephrase.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC) The last para on naming seems like it would fit better elsewhere, as it isn't to do with myths or legends, just etymology.  Done - moved to "Appearances and features" --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Overall, the prose is good and interesting. At times, it seems more guidebook-like than encyclopedic, so watch out for that. I made a few edits to fix that where I saw it most egregiously. Another read-over with that in mind from you would be helpful. Overall, it's a very good article and interesting topic!  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC) @Ganesha811:- All issues have been addressed. Could you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC) After edits, looks good! Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues. Slightly unencyclopedic tone in places but will address that under prose.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Mostly, the sources are fine, but I'm concerned about Source #2, Exploring the North. While I don't really believe the site is making things up, it appears to be simply a small website with no institutional backing or basis for reliability. Do we have any more information about how the site works / who they are?  Done Exploring the North.com main page I was born and raised in Michigan. The information to me as a Michigander looks correct. I'm a retiree and living in northern Michigan.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Acceptable, especially as this isn't a WP:BLP. Pass. Thanks for the info.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All statements sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio flags a couple of things, but it seems clear they are copying from Wiki rather than the other way around.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Provisional pass. Want to do a little more research before passing for sure. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. Good level of detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I think the lead image should be changed to a view of the spring itself, rather than a plaque about it. In fact, I'm not convinced the plaque image needs to be in the article at all. The other images are good, but could stand to be spaced throughout the article rather than confined to a gallery.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC) * Pass, much improved, thanks. :)
	7. Overall assessment.	GA Reassessment Kitch-iti-kipi The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC) I was the one who reviewed this article for GA originally, but in light of issues brought to light here about Doug Coldwell's tendencies in the GA area, I went back to have another look. In retrospect, I do not think I should have promoted this article in its current state. There are minor prose and formatting issues, but the bigger problems are with sources. I accepted Doug's half-baked justification for using ExploringTheNorth.com, a site of unknown reliability that the article heavily relies upon. UpperMichiganWaterfalls.com is also a poor source that is clearly promotional and probably unreliable. The article should be delisted as a GA. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Within the critical eye brought on by the CCI issues for the author the wording in the second paragraph in the Native American legends section is a little too close to that at Exploring the North for my liking. Gusfriend (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Delist per nom. On another note, if the September 2022 ANI discussion Doug was subject to didn't make him realize his problematic editing patterns then I'm not sure what will. Articles with blatant copyright, plagiarism, and reliability issues should not be GAs. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.