- 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 Bruxton (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bishopcroft
... that, in 1910, the Bishop of Oregon commissioned a new residence that included a grand staircase, ballroom, and private chapel?Source: "National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Bishopcroft of the Episcopal Diocese of Oregon". National Park Service. 18 May 2000. Retrieved 24 February 2023.- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Iconic (concert)
- Comment: Draft created by Bking64, article expanded and pushed to mainspace by Pbritti
Created by Bking64 (talk) and Pbritti (talk). Nominated by Pbritti (talk) at 16:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bishopcroft; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Article:
- Created on February 24, 2023, nominated for DYK the same day.
- The length checks, and its neutrally written.
- Created on February 24, 2023, nominated for DYK the same day.
- Hook:
- Truth be told, the hook caught my eye among the other nominations mainly for the opulent description of a bishop's residence. The description of the design in the article was fairly interesting to me.
- No issues with the neutrality and the info checks.
- Truth be told, the hook caught my eye among the other nominations mainly for the opulent description of a bishop's residence. The description of the design in the article was fairly interesting to me.
- QPQ: checks.
Looks good to me.
--GDuwenHoller! 21:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti and GDuwen: I don't love ALT0, because it's a claim that has to be inferred from the original NRHP application, based on the fact that it states that no other alterations were made from the original design except for X, Y, Z. I searched the newspaper archives to see if I could find a reference to the ballroom in 1910/1911, but no joy there. It would be great if you could propose an ALT hook or two. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: I'm fairly certain that
The house has been preserved in its original construction
out of the source is explicit enough to to cover the grand staircase being original. There are multiple references to the bishop's chapel also being original in the NRHP report. The ballroom is additionally sourced to to not only the NRHP report (which doesn't describe it's origins in an exceedingly typical way of indicating it's presence in the original construction) but also to this article which indicates its lateral renovation. As best I can tell, the only hold up is that no source explicitly says "the ballroom was built in 1911" despite the overwhelming contextual evidence rather than unfounded inference. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- @Pbritti: Unfortunately I don't think this explanation will hold up when we get grilled about it; it's too many inferential leaps. (It's possible, for example, that the ballroom was originally the library and got converted by Sumner without any "major" alterations... It's impossible to tell with the sources given so far.) Furthermore, that OregonLive article is a bit breezy and superficial; in the end, it's promoting a quirky home for sale so it's a source to use with caution. Is there any way you could find a copy of Classic Houses of Portland, Oregon, 1850–1950 in a library near you? It seems to be the main source missing that covers the subject in detail, and could provide more interesting hook ideas. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: I'm fairly certain that
We'd need to really, really contort the sources and assume the worst about a local paper's recent coverage to discount the most grammatically, contextually sound interpretation of the sources. However, I appreciate the excess caution in a post-Doug Coldwell world. I'll be checking out a copy of the book this weekend (it might require a day to ILL locally; I may expedite by dropping in when I'm in Denver for work) so we will have absolute confirmation then. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: Point taken. Since we seem to be kind of stuck at the time, why not modifying the hook to read "commissioned a new residence that would include a grand staircase, ballroom, and private chapel?"?. I admit I did not go deep into those details while checking the source material. If it becomes that hard to establish, that modification of the hook would allow us to at least suggest that if the rooms were not there, they were added later at some other point in time. And if they were indeed there, it also covers it.--GDuwenHoller! 17:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Per GDuwen and my unfortunate inability to get to the library, I think an alt proposal is in order:
- ALT1:
... that, in 1910, the Bishop of Oregon commissioned a new residence that eventually included staircase, ballroom, and private chapel?
- Cielquiparle, any thoughts? Apologies for not being able to get to the source we both wanted; if I'm able to I'll try to and add its information when I actually get access. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: I think ALT1 also doesn't work because it's clear from the 1911 newspaper article that the private chapel was there from the start; so the wording of the hook is awkward. Some other hook suggestions if nothing more is added to the article:
- ALT2: ... that the Bishop of Oregon and his wife hosted dinner parties at Bishopcroft?
- ALT3: ... that Bishop of Oregon's residence in Portland once had a private chapel, a ballroom, and a wine cellar?
- Cielquiparle (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: Thanks for checking. I definitely lean ALT3, and if you want to approve that, I'm more than game—it feels hookish. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Need another reviewer to approve ALT3. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: Thanks for checking. I definitely lean ALT3, and if you want to approve that, I'm more than game—it feels hookish. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: I think ALT1 also doesn't work because it's clear from the 1911 newspaper article that the private chapel was there from the start; so the wording of the hook is awkward. Some other hook suggestions if nothing more is added to the article:
