Wikipedia:Peer review/Harshaw, Arizona/archive1

Harshaw, Arizona

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this Arizona ghost town article for peer review because I can see that it's still not comparable to the Good Articles about ghost towns, but I'm not sure where to go from here. Ghost towns like this one are pretty obscure, and unlike the more highly-rated ghost town articles, there is little left of this town, and the history is lacking in some places (such as more detailed demographics, which simply don't seem to exist for this town). As such, comparisons to these other articles is not always helpful. At this point, I'm out of ideas and sources, having checked everything I could think of on Google News, Google Books, several ghost town (and related) books that I own, the local library, online mining resources, government sources, and everything else I could think of. I still stumble across little ways to improve it from time to time, but I can't think of anything else substantive to add.

What's missing from the article? Are there any other general topics it needs to cover, or other subjects the existing ones should discuss? How's the style? Is the article both informative and neutral? What does it need? I'm sure that other eyes will see things that I haven't. Thanks. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm delighted to encounter another fan of ghost towns. This article is very good already. It's quite an enjoyable read, well-illustrated, broad in coverage, stable, neutral, and well-written. I think it's about ready for GA. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

• Since the lead is to be a summary or abstract of the whole article, I'd suggest expanding it to include mention of the Indians, Spanish, the main mines and mining companies, plans for more mining and the National Heritage Area, the climate, and anything else of significance that you add in the future. I'm not suggesting a much longer lead, but you could expand the third paragraph and go to four paragraphs if you need that many.
  • Got it. I will defer this one until I see what else is added to the article. No sense expanding it, then having to expand it again to cover new information. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see that you've added alt text, but alt text should describe things for readers who can't see the images. If you imagine a blind reader who is being read to by a machine, you'll see why "Harshaw in the 1880s" won't help that reader. Instead, the alt text might say something like "A town of about 30 one-story buildings stretches along the floor of a dry narrow valley. A few trees grow near the houses, but only low, widely separated desert shrubs grow on the hills above the valley." Or something like that. WP:ALT has details, and you can visit WP:FAC to see recent examples of alt text in articles.
  • Ah, I didn't realize that. Thanks! Those won't be quite as quick to write, but I'll take a stab at it. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done I took a stab at the alt text rewrites. This is my first stab at these, so please point out any problems. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Generally it's a good idea to avoid making text sandwiches like the one at the top of "Founding and early town history". The Manual of Style also advises against displacing heads or subheads with images. The fix is easy. Simply move the Harshaw image down a couple of paragraphs but not so far that it displaces the "Rebirth" subhead.
  • I've had trouble with this one. If I move the image down enough to clear the right side images, it displaces the next header. Also, depending on monitor resolution, even that may not clear the right side images. I think I'll wait to see how the expanded article looks before trying to move this image. Since it seems likely that I will add a Geology section, the right side geological map will likely be a good fit there, and that would change the desired position of other images. So again, I'll defer on this until other expansions are done. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done With the Geology section added, I moved the USGS map to that section, then moved the offending image to the place vacated by the map. With a few other tweaks, this seems to have fixed all of the text sandwiches. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• A possibility for expansion would be to include something about the geology of the area. Someone, possibly a USGS geologist, will have written about the ore-bearing rocks, and someone will have written about how plate tectonics played a role in creating Arizona. Perhaps something has been written about pre-historic flora and fauna that once lived in the Harshaw area.
  • There's actually about a ton of geological information from the USGS as well as various mining resources. I have those references, it will just take me some time to go through them, parse them, and add the information in. But this should be very doable. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done I added a geology section based on USGS sources and mining resources. I also moved the previous Mining header under the geology section as it seemed to make sense that way. Geology isn't an area where I have a depth of knowledge, so I've done my best to correctly represent the sources. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Another possibility for expansion would be to include something more about changes in the flora of the last 150 years in or near Harshaw. You mention that David Harshaw was a rancher who moved to the area because "the land was noted for its exceptional grazing". Was it not good for grazing later? If not, why not? This sentence suggests that things fell apart all around Harshaw: "At its peak in the 1880s and 1890s, Harshaw's location was considered scenic as it was surrounded by oak forests, lush pastures, and abundant water." I'm guessing that some combination of fire, overgrazing, logging, and pollution made the place less desirable, but I don't know for sure.
  • Actually, I just found a source that states that the land is still used for limited cattle grazing today. There are issues (such as with the water, as I will mention below), but I don't think flora and fauna have taken extreme hits in this area. I will read more on this in a few sources I found, and expand to make this clear. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done I expanded the Geography section to include environmental issues, including foliage, the continuation of cattle grazing, the abundance of water, and the more recent water pollution issues that tie back to the area's mining past. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Flora, fauna, towns, and mines require water. Did Harshaw Creek provide all the water that was needed? Did the mine owners have to pipe water in from elsewhere? Does Harshaw Creek still flow through Harshaw? Why is the water no longer abundant?
  • No mention of anyone needing to pipe in water for the mill. Harshaw Creek still flows in the area, but a source I found says that the water is polluted, in large part due to mining dumps and residues, which makes for an interesting expansion. I will research more on that, and see what I can add. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done I expanded the Geography section to include environmental issues, including foliage, the continuation of cattle grazing, the abundance of water, and the more recent water pollution issues that tie back to the area's mining past. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to add a "Names" section. When I was working on Rhyolite, Nevada, a peer reviewer suggested that idea to me, and it worked out pretty well. Names that might be fun to explain include Hermosa, Hardshell, Flux, Trench, Coronado, and Patagonia. Just a suggestion.
  • This is something I haven't come across in my research yet. I tried to find information on "Hermosa," but struck out. I will keep digging as this could lead to interesting topics. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think you need so many multiple citations for some of the claims. Six at the end of the second paragraph of the lead seems excessive, for example.
  • That's my fear of losing a source coming through, but it's largely a baseless fear. I'll try to thin down a few of the more redundantly sourced items, especially in the intro. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done I thinned down some of the 4+ ref areas, including the intro section mentioned above. There are still some groupings of 3-4 refs, though. For example, I use three refs for the statements about the town's newspaper. One is a good secondary source which establishes the name of the paper and the editor, one is a directory of publications which shows the circulation, and one is a listing showing the date of the first issue. I cut one ref from here that did the same thing as the first one I mentioned. Let me know if you think the multiple refs are still too much in places. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Captions consisting of only one sentence fragment don't take terminal periods.
  •  Done Thanks. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Centuries like 19th century are typically unlinked.
  •  Done Thanks. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Should troy ounces be linked? How about short ton?
  •  Done Yes, and until you said this, I had no idea that you could do so from within a convert template. Good tip! -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• The date formatting in the Reference section should be consistent. Most dates seem to be in yyyy-mm-dd format, so flipping the others to that format would solve the problem.
  •  Done I changed them all to the October 17, 2009 format instead (just my preference, really). But anyway, done. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'm slammed this weekend, so I doubt I'll get to go through any of it in detail until next week, but just from a read, I can see that it's valuable feedback. Some are quick fixes, while others are interesting avenues for research. I'm also really happy that, seemingly against the odds, the person who reviewed this article was not only familiar with ghost town articles on Wikipedia, but was someone who significantly improved one of the few FA ghost town articles, getting it to FA. I couldn't have asked for a better "outside" view. Thanks again, and I'll post a detailed response as soon as I get a chance. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied inline to each bullet above. Some are done, some are in progress (researching), and some are awaiting expansion. Thanks. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. I don't usually respond point-by-point to changes made in response to peer reviews, so please don't think I'm ignoring your notes. It's fine to ping me on my talk page if you think I can be of further help. Finetooth (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I want to continue to track progress against these items here, even just for my own sake. If I run into something that I think could benefit from your input, I will ask you about it on your talk page. Thanks again for the ideas and suggestions. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 02:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

llywrch comments

Just a few, random points:

• In the version I read this is a very comprehensive article. Far more than I would expect to read about a ghost town. (I've since made a small edit.)
• The chief problem I had with this article is the last paragraph in the section "History > Continued activity". It is obvious that the point you wish to make there is that the Forest Service brought about the demise of Harshaw. It had been part of the Coronado N.F. for 10 years, & none of the inhabitants had legal title to their properties -- so they were ruled to be squatters & most removed. However, the way this paragraph currently reads it is quite confusing & feels like you have incompletely digested a much larger, more complex story. (And why did it take the Forest Service ten years to start dismantling Harshaw?)
• If you want to make this into an FA, consider this: look at the context Harshaw belongs to. How did it fit into the history of silver mining in Arizona? Where did it excel, & where did it fail to measure up? Do all ghost towns go through a crash, then experience spikes of renewed activity over the following years -- & why does this happen? Yes, some of this is crossing the line against original research, but I would assume of the countless mining & ghost towns of Arizona, there are some for which a study like this has been done -- & against which Harshaw could be compared. I would be surprised if this kind of comparison violates original research.

Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)