Wikipedia:Peer review/U-Drop Inn/archive1

U-Drop Inn

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like additional feedback on what fixes it may need before submitting it for Good Article. It was originally created as an attack article and rescued from near deletion. I believe it is now well sourced and well written, though it may be in need of a copyedit. I'm also not sure if on the section headers and order, as there is no MOS for this particular type of article that I could find.

Thanks, AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Doncram There's a fledgling guide for style of NRHP articles now available at WP:NRHPMOS. It is very rough and does not represent any large consensus, but you might consult it.

I note that this article does not seem to include in its sources the basic NRHP Registration document, or NRHP Inventory/Nomination document. That is usually a good source for some information worth including in an article, and is available for free. For NRHPs in Texas, I don't know about / don't believe tht this document is available on-line, but you may request this to be sent to you. Send an email directed to the National Register Reference Team at nr_reference at nps.gov, and provide your postal mail address.

I may make further comments, but hope this is helpful to start. doncram (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes...I did see that, but didn't find it very helpful, unfortunately, for figuring out how to structure the article or what should be included. I will look into getting the NRHP document to see what information it may contain that is useful. It seems like they are now online at http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/ Is there a specific template that should be used for citing these forms, or is cite web sufficient since they are online? AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, the new NRHPMOS is not helpful that way yet at all. You could ask at the Talk page of WP:NRHP for suggestions of good example articles specifically relevant to your article, to look at their structure, but you could also certainly take a look at the Featured Articles and the Good Articles completed within the project, which are listed at WP:NRHP (though they may be about different kinds of places than this). Thanks for the pointer to that Texas website, but the best i can get there is their "National Register Listing" for the Tower Station, and I can't figure out how to get a solid URL to point to that. Do you have a specific URL for the Tower Station listing there? And, this may (or may not) have the whole main text of the actual NRHP document, but it is missing other sections, including name of preparer and date of the document, and it is missing the acconpanying photo set. Take a look at any of the List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina, and bring up the PDF files they link to that are complete documents, scanned. Those are available at the US National Park Service usually only for NRHPs that are also National Historic Landmarks, but the state of South Carolina also provides scanned copies of the actual documents, like photocopies, for all of the NRHPs in South Carolina. The Texas site is providing only some text from those documents, and it is incomplete. So you could refer to this source for now, but do request the full document from the National Register. doncram (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, added the URL to the article to verify the ID and date. Is any of the information missing actually relevant, such as the name of the preparer? It seems like the most relevant bits are included in the online version (description, date approved, architectural information, etc)? AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You added a URL to the Texas Historical Commission webpage that mixes selected U.S. NRIS database information and selected text from the U.S. NRHP Inventory/Nomination document. That's apparent to me, as I have worked with more than 1000 articles and added NRIS data and NRHP text documents to them. If you rely upon any information (architectural description or otherwise) from the text part of that, then I think it is poor referencing to give just the THC webpage as the source, knowing that there is a better, more fundamental version available to reference instead, one which would give appropriate credit for the writing by the preparer, give the date of preparation (which is relevant for the reader to evaluate the source, and which would provide the bibliography of sources that the preparer relied upon, probably in addition to the preparer's visit to the site. Also, for some editors such as myself, the name of the preparer would also be informative in my consideration of that source.

To illustrate this for you, I just edited another Texas article, the John Nance Garner House, which is a NRHP that is also a National Historic Landmark, so its NRHP Inventory/Nomination document is available on-line. I added that, and the Texas Historical Commission reference was already there, so you can now compare them. Some differences: the NRHP version includes 3 different photographs of the site taken by one of the preparers. They show the property in different condition than the THC photo does, and for this site the photos are arguably public domain (there is a note in credits that the NPS sites survey owns the negatives), and can and probably should be added to the article. The photos and text were prepared by George R. Adams, whom I recognize from many other articles, along with Ralph Christian for the text, whom I also recognize from many others, both of whom I happen to trust highly. I would tend to question, somewhat, text by someone i did not recognize at all, or text by one particular historian who I know made erroneous judgments in two particular situations. The NRHP version also shows the footnotes and bibliography of references that the preparers relied upon, which the THC version omits. And you may notice also that the NRHP version is easier to read, and more interesting even, than the THC version, due to formatting / visual layout / other "superficial" reasons certainly and perhaps due to other real differences that I haven't identified yet. I guess it is more credible from its more complete appearance and officialness somehow. Also, the NRHP documents sometimes include maps, artistic images, and other materials. I have no specific knowledge of what the Tower Station NRHP document has in addition to what the THC extracted from it, but I hope this explanation helps you understand where I am coming from when I advise you to put in a simple request to get the free document. doncram (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you have any comments/remarks regarding the other aspects of the article, such as section ordering, formatting, prose, etc? I found a photographer who is willing to upload one of his night shots for use in the article. With that, do you think it will be illustrated adequately? AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought for a while whether or not i should say this. But if u r asking me personally for any other comments, within my comment section, I will say it: I feel somewhat disrespected with respect to modest suggestions given so far, so I don't feel like offering anything else. I don't know if i would have anything brilliant to say, so odds are you are probably not missing anything. Sorry if this comes across wrong, but it's true, i don't feel like adding anything else right now. I do hope that others will offer some comments, as I don't feel your request for a peer review has gotten a proper response yet. Good luck with the article. doncram (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt disrespected. I have little experience with NRHP or its documentation, having never seen one before, and have never worked on an article in this arena before, so I just wanted to understand better why you felt I needed the original NRHP documents. I didn't understand why the online ones pointed to were better or different from the online ones in the Texas database. I'm sorry my ignorance in this area resulted in my inadvertently being rude. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: First off, I ordered the NRHP form for Joseph Priestley House (now an FA) at doncram's suggestion and found it contained some useful information not available online. All it cost me was an email to NRHP, and the time to read it. ;-) As to the article, it is in pretty good shape already, but could use a bit of polish. Here are some suggestions:

• Highway 83 is a dab currently and should have the correct link - check all the links
• The building passed through the hands of a few more owners while the filling station sold gasoline from various companies, starting with Conoco when the building originally opened.[7][8] I would say that it sold Conoco gas back when you describe the opening - jumping around chronologically is confusing. Also be as specific as possible - if the other brands or owners are identified in reliable sources, give that here too. If not, the current wording is OK.
• The organization seems a bit odd - the History makes no mention of Route 66 closing (or restoration), so the last paragraph is not really in context. See WP:PCR
• What if there were three subsections in the current History section? First the current History section material to 1950 when Nunn buys it back - maybe Construction and operation as a title? Or Heyday?. Then a Decline subsection with Nunn's death, end of Route 66, etc. Integrate material at the end of the current History with the beginning of the current D & R section. Last a Restoration section.
• Refs should be listed in order - currently have [2][15][10] to fix, may be more
• I would consider a cite of Once considered a beautiful and impressive example of Route 66 architecture in Texas, ... in the lead - who considered it?
• In the rear, a second, shorter tower contained the restaurant.[16] from the picture it looks like the second shorter tower is atop the restaurant, contain seems an odd word choice here.
• I read for content, not typos but noticed a few (missing commas, refs not after punctuation, etc). Try to find someone with a keen eye to go over this, and print it out and read it aloud and see if you catch some things that way.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps me understand a little better why requesting the document would be good (and I've already done so). I will work on the areas you mentioned and agree on the section order. Its one reason I decided to peer review now :). It seemed odd, but I couldn't quite put a finger on why. I'll definately be asking for a full copyedit before attempting a GA or FA as it is not my strong suit at all :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of the issues you mentioned. Did you spot anymore? I've requested the documentation, but takes two week to process so won't be utilized before the PR is over. I also tried to get an awesome night picture to show the neon accents, but I believe the photographer may have been chased off by registering, waiting, then being told to go upload at the commons instead and having to register again. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by mav The lead section needs major NPOVing and many inline cites. Figure for cost to build needs a cite and the parenthetical aside about the newspaper should deleted for POV. All figures and quotes needs inline cites along with any statement that will likely be challenged (esp POV; but be sure to say who the POV is coming from but only include such POV IF it is relevant) or is surprising. And what is up with the 'fatness' statements? OK what the hell is this "One of the "quiet little secrets" about the recent renovation of the U-Drop Inn is that a major portion of the funding went into the special reinforcing of the floor beneath the office in which David Rushing sits so as to avoid any severe damage to the subterranean strata that might be caused by the movements of his severely rotund behind."? That is not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia and needs to be completely rewritten and cited (assuming any part is true or relevant). The body of the article is much better. However, the Decline section should be made more chronological. As it is, the first paragraph goes through the whole history of that subtopic with an ownership theme and then the second paragraph repeats the history with a general decline of Route 66 towns theme. I don' think there should be a separation of themes like that. In short, rewrite the lead section for POV/cite and then refactor the Decline section and I think this will pass a GAN. --mav (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article had been vandalized a few hours before you had visited. Please revisit now that the article has been restored. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by IvoShandor At a glance:

• An article, at least a stub, on the architect would be a nice.
• The Tower Station and U-Drop Inn is one such location, with its unique design and architecture becoming the inspiration for the character Ramone's body shop in the movie This sentence is confusingly worded, is Ramone's body shop really a character in this film? I haven't seen it so . . .
• Info on why it was added to the NRHP would be useful. Probably available in the NRHP documentation, usually a good source, as others have said. (Minus the ocassional embellishments; these documents originate as persuasive nominations, after all.)

• Additional note on NRHP forms and photos: Photographs in the NRHP database are usually not in the public domain. The copyright is owned by the original photographer. I contacted the NRHP as well as my State Historic Preservation Office specifically regarding the issue. The exception is when the photographs were taken by the NPS or its programs (i.e. National Historic Landmarks, NRHP etc.) The ownership of the physical negatives or photographs isn't relevant to intellectual property considerations. Just FYI. Techinically, the text isn't either but the Register office asserted that it would be almost unimaginable for somebody to exert intellectual property rights over the text of an NRHP nomination form, they are very much lacking in creativity. The photos, on the other hand, are another story.

• It seems that the building's appearance in the Pixar film might be given undue weight. Since it is attributed to one source this seems even more pertinent. Perhaps there are some other sources out there that corroborate the notability for this film appearance. I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned but I question whether it needs its own section.
• Watch out for sneaky POV, take the following paragraph from the "Restoration" section:

• The company strove to adapt the old gas station and café to act as the community's chamber of commerce and visitor center while preserving the building's architectural features and historical authenticity.[15] Old photographs and interviews with residents were used to aid the company in uncovering the buildings original details. They carefully peeled away decades of paint layers and fabric to find the original interior and exterior colors. One of the more difficult aspects was in restoring the neon accents. While historical photographs showed where neon existed, they had all been taken during the daytime when the neon lights were off, making it difficult to determine what color the lights originally were
• Basically, the bolded areas seem to add an air of honorability to their task, try to avoid this type of sneaky POV.

• An area that might add some interesting information to the article is the building's journey from 1997 bank repossession to a listing on the NRHP the same year. Was it the bank that owned it from 97-99? Did the bank nominate the structure to the Register? These are just two questions that could be answered with such an addition.
• Try to avoid disambiguation pages such as Fina, not sure which one I am supposed to be reading with that link.
• It says it's an Art deco building, which I agree with but there doesn't seem to be any information in the "Architecture" section on why that is so.

That's all I got for you right now. I hope this helps out. IvoShandor (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice rescue of this article btw, that earliest version was, well, bad, to say the least. :) IvoShandor (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Ramone is a character in the film, and its his body shop that is based on U-Drop. I'll see if I can word that better to clarify. I can see your point on the movie appearance. It is mentioned in quite a few other sources, that one was just the best fitting of RS. I debated moving somewhere else, but it didn't really seem to fit in other sections either. Any thoughts on ways to do that?

I've requested the NRHP documents so hopefully they will answer the questions of why it was added and maybe fill in the gap on how it came to be bank owned. Only one or two sources I found gave any indication, noting it was repossessed during a divorce proceeding, but the sources didn't meet RS, so I didn't include it for now. The NRHP document seems to give more details on the architecture as well, based on the abbreviated online version, so hopefully that will help. Do you think I should add a short summary of what typifies art deco style to help clarify why this building is considered to be so? I'll work on those sneaky NPOVs (totally unintentional though...its the writer in me! ;)) and fix those disambigs. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It took me second but here we go, when I came across a similar situation writing DeKalb County Courthouse (Illinois) I just merged it with the rest of the history, fitting it in chronologically. The only issue I see here is where it would fit in, "Restoration", might have to be retitled.

Rewording the Ramone statement will help with its clarity to be sure. I think a couple sentences about Art Deco wouldn't hurt. Perhaps noting the vertical emphasis many Art deco buildings have, which is one characteristic that is especially obvious in the lead photo for this article. That's too bad that Texas doesn't have the NRHP nom forms online, they can take awhile to get from the NPS. If you don't get it after a month or so try contacting them again. I have requested forms on occasion and sometimes have never received them.IvoShandor (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The NRHP documents have arrived. Its 14 pages, so will take me a bit to incorporate. It already seems to have more stuff for both the history and architecture sections :) Need to figure out how to cite it though...AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I usually just cite it like this: author(s). "Title of document -usually property listing", National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, date written, page numbers. IvoShandor (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you for procuring the NRHP documents, and I am glad that it does have additional information to incorporate. Below are some reference format options. The key idea is that you take the preparer's name(s) from Section 11 of the NRHP document, and I also generally include any named editors' names that appear there just as if they are additional authors. And you use as date of the document the date of preparation appearing in Section 11, or, if there is also a later date of editors' revisions given, then use that later date. Include the month, day, and year of the date of preparation, if available, but some documents are only dated to the month. Some documents list a preparer and not a date: then use just the year if that is apparent from stamps or approval signature dates in the document, otherwise list it as "Undated" explicitly. Note: these documents can sometimes be prepared years before or years after the NHL designation date, so it is not valid to assume the year of the document is the year of the NHL designation. I haven't included page numbers in most footnotes to these documents that I have used, I have just cited the whole document. Not sure how to fit in a particular page number; I would welcome IvoShandor's perspective. I'll put some version of these instructions over in the NRHPMOS, and any discussion on how to improve these format options can continue over there.

Suggested reference formats:

• Version where text and photos not on-line, but received in hard copy on NRHP Inventory/Nomination form from National Park Service;
• Version where text and photos not on-line, but received in hard copy on NHL Nomination form from National Park Service;
• Version where two PDFs of text and of photos are available on-line and document is on the NRHP Inventory/Nomination form;
• Version where two PDFs of text and of photos are available on-line and document is on the NRHP Inventory/Nomination form;
• Version where only PDF of text is available;

References

Also, a differently formatted example for a wikipedia article using separate Notes and Bibliography sections appears in the Ruhrfisch-co-authored Joseph Priestley House article mentioned previously. An NRHP document referenced in that article is the reference listed under Greenwood, Richard, dated 1974.

Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)