Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Redstone Historic District (Colorado)

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Redstone Historic District (Colorado) edit

(
)

A colorful one-and-a-half-story wooden building with a pointed wooden shingled roof and large signs on the front and in front reading "Redstone General Store". There are some old gas pumps out front. To the left is another house in a mixture of colors.

Created/expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self nom at 00:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Article is long enough (18kb)
  • Article was new enough at time of submission (4 days)
  • Article appears neutral
  • Article cites sources
  • Ran duplicate detector
Some similarities to ref 1, but extensive re-wording and re-phrasing appears to have taken place
Other refs are offline or only support small parts of the article
The article shares a huge chunk of prose in common with Redstone Coke Oven Historic District but is big enough to meet criteria without it.
  • Main Hook checks out and is supported by the cited reference.
  • ALT hook is supported by an offline reference, but may be of greater interest to readers.
  • Picture is ok for free use, but seems a bit grey and wishy-washy colour-wise. There is a great image on the page of the old coke ovens, which has nice bright colours, but it was used on DYK 29/Jan/2012.

Over all, I'm happy with it, but I'd like a second opinion about the copied section of prose and how that gets assessed (it's not a copy-vio if it's on WP), as I've not seen that before. Wikiwayman (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Aside from which, the old coke ovens aren't in the district. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have also replaced the image with what I used in the lede, where the Flickr user who uploaded it there hadn't changed the licensing at the time I made the nom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Confirming the first review, the article is long enough, nom was submitted on time, however, there are a few paragraphs in the beginning that need references to qualify. For the most part, the article has plenty of refs, so hopefully this is a minor issue that can be easily fixed. Marrante (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The section, "1880–1900: Early mine development" is a problem. DYK is supposed to be new, so this is specifically prohibited and we're not just talking a sentence or two, it's five paragraphs. Re-writing it is probably more trouble than it's worth. I suggest truncating it drastically, which will force you to re-write sufficiently, then link to the section in the older article. I have not read through the entire article, but am hoping this solution can work for you. It looks like a well-written and interesting article for DYK, but this section has to be fixed. Marrante (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In terms of how much of the article has to be new (which I'm not sure the rules define; perhaps they should), it's not too large a section of the article and a solid majority of the text is new. I will rewrite or truncate if that's what you really want ... however, that passage is equally relevant to both the village and the nearby coke ovens and I don't see why a bureaucratic trifle should require that it get shorter shrift in one article than another. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Having contributed to a few local town articles, I understand that sometimes historical sources are few and far between. I also understand that the same historical events can affect current geography in different ways. Hence, contributors may need to include (for completeness and correct understanding) some of the information on the old company in both articles. My advice would be to look at what Marrante has suggested, and then consider whether readers would be able to get a proper understanding of the town without it. My gut-feel is that you'd need to add some information back in, possibly tweaking it so that you could emphasise the social impacts of the company's policies a little more. You may be able to remove some of these aspects from the Coke Oven article unless they are directly linked to the decline of the industry in that area. I like the alternative photo thumbnail, it makes me want to click on it to see what the brightly coloured buildings are. As for ignoring all the rules, DYK is a front-page feature, so the bar is justifiably quite high. Keep me in the loop (use my talk page) and I'll see what I can do to proof-read and comment for you, although my day-job keeps me very busy.Wikiwayman (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The point in both articles is to explain how it was that Osgood wanted to build both his town and his coking facility there. The two are interrelated. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that DYK is supposed to be new articles. I can appreciate your quandary, having found myself in similar situations, working on more than one article at a time in which some information was pertinent to both, but as Wikiwayman said, it is the main page and articles can see spikes of hundreds and thousands and even tens of thousands. New is new; other readers may not care or realize why you have copied a section, but if they read or have read one article, they'll spot the duped section in the second. An out-and-out duplication has to be avoided here if you want to get on the main page. Otherwise, have at it. You can also request another review (use the red and gray icon), but it's probably best to do that once you've made changes addressing the issues raised. Marrante (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Duplicated section is still in article. Since February 2, only edits have been to add/change photos, disambiguate and wikify a name. Marrante (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on this now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'm done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy now, for main hook, for ALT1. Wikiwayman (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Redstone_Historic_District_(Colorado)&oldid=1189642496"