Talk:Bean Station, Tennessee

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bean Station, Tennessee. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2006-04-47.csv
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopest%2Fdata%2Fcities%2Ftotals%2F2012%2FSUB-EST2012.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

User:AppalachianCentrist has been adding the word "controversy" to a section about Bean Station's sewers. Nothing suggests this topic meets the criteria of a controversy outlined at WP:CRIT, and the sources cited only say elected officials have been reluctant to install new sewers due to the cost. Not sure what the controversy is. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The topic of installing a wastewater treatment system in the town is considered controversial due to the often heated political discussion the topic brings. This is supported by a statement regarding the issue of delaying its construction from the town's former mayor:

"Every system in this town has failed us. Businesses are leaving because of no sewer. You can’t attract anything without a sewer. We could have been way ahead. It’s nothing but a political ruse to try to do this. The grant has already been established, it’s already been awarded, the avenue to get the money to match the grant is available."

The engineering report in the tab also lists the need for wastewater treatment:

"Many of the existing ST/DF (septic tank/drain field) systems in the Town are failing. Such

failures are apparent by the “surfacing” of waste on the ground surface. Sufficient area must be set aside for a back-up system after the original system ceases to properly operate. However, failure may not occur until after several years of operation. In many cases, the areas that were set aside for backup are used for other purposes. Many property owners are left with no option to construct additional drain field lines. As such, a public sewer system is the only option to eliminate the failing ST/DF system... As previously indicated, the Town has long considered the need for a public sewer system

due to the number of failing septic tank/drain field systems. Town officials also know their ability to attract businesses and create jobs are limited without a public sewer system."

--AppalachianCentrist (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

References

@AppalachianCentrist: You wrote that this is controversial because of the "often heated political discussion the topic brings", but your example shows a disagreement between one person and the elected town council? As for the engineering report, it very objectively discusses the septic system and the town's limited abilities to attract business and jobs without an upgrade. How does this contribute to your feeling this is controversy? Again, are you able to provide specific examples of how Bean Station's septic system is "controversial", per WP:CRIT? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@AppalachianCentrist: I'd like to reach a consensus without seeking dispute resolution. Could you please respond? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I can see a resolution if the wastewater tab is noted to an extent for its need or the issue regarding it, it does not have to say Wastewater controversy, but can Need for wastewater or Wastewater issue suffice?

Thanks, --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@AppalachianCentrist: How about "Wastewater", which imparts no bias and lets readers come to their own conclusion? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677:, sounds understandable, so it has been changed to that. Thanks, --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Bean Station, Tennessee

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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for reassessment predominantly over prose concerns. Specifically, the massive overuse and misuse of the word "would". Would is a future tense word, yet it is frequently misused to describe past tense actions. Sentences such as The tavern, being popular with politicians while campaigning or traveling across the country, would provide heated encounters with political rivals who would stay at the tavern as well. and The Peavine Railroad would end service in 1928, and the lines would be either demolished or washed out following the inundation of the Holston River by the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1942. are exceptionally poorly written and do not meet GA standards as I understand them. Consider also the extreme example of The accident is considered one of the deadliest and worst traffic collisions in the history of the state of Tennessee. The collision, the deadliest in state history... It is clear to me this article needs a fundamental rewrite. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• I made some prose improvements following this article being mentioned on the Discord, but I'm not sure it's enough to save it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think a number of the sources used are properly reliable. For instance:
  • "Seitz, Robert. "Tate Springs Resort and Hotel 1865-1941". Kingswood School History. Archived from the original on March 27, 2015. Retrieved December 21, 2020." - looks like someone's personal history website
  • " "Private Acts: Highways & Roads". Grainger County Genealogy & History. May 9, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2021." - local genealogy website; this sort of source usually is not RS
  • " "Bean Station, TN to Tazewell, TN". Walk Over States." - wordpress, no reason to think this blog would be RS
  • " "Bean Station, TN". DataUSA.io. Retrieved May 18, 2020." - I don't know what this is, but I doubt it is RS
  • " Morfe, Don (October 20, 2013). "Battle of Bean's Station". The Historical Marker Database. Retrieved December 28, 2020." - user generated, not RS
  • " Morfe, Don (October 20, 2013). "Bean Station". The Historical Marker Database. Retrieved December 28, 2020." - see above
  • " "Locations". bookofthedead.ws. Retrieved July 12, 2020." - any reason why we should think this is RS?
• This clearly needs substantive work. Hog Farm _Talk 04:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• I'll try to take a look at this in the next few days and see if I can do enough to save it. The original promoter has retired, although I have strongly encouraged them to reconsider this decision. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Update - I'm going to copyedit this article over the next few hours or so. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Update - just finished the history section, and plan to move on to the rest of the article tomorrow. After thoroughly reading over this article, I must conclude that this is going to be a difficult one to save. I'm thinking about a GOCE request, but these have been taking months to answer lately. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. I'm happy to leave this open as long as progress is being made. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Update - Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, Hog Farm - It took longer than I thought (I almost forgot), but I have made a bunch of other improvements to pretty much every section. However, I'm on the fence about !voting to keep or delist. I would like to hear everyone else's opinion about whether or not any additional improvements are needed. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources that I expressed reliability concerns about above are still in the article except for bookofthedead.ws; these need either replaced or satisfactorily defended. Hog Farm _Talk 03:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look shortly. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you still intend to do so Bneu2013? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: - yes, sorry forgot about this. But unfortunately, I still think I'm going to have to reluctantly lean towards delisting to B-class. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2024 (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.