Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac Thomas Shutt, Alfred Hill Thompson, Church of All Saints, Harlow Hill

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Isaac Thomas Shutt, Alfred Hill Thompson, Church of All Saints, Harlow Hill

edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
Church of All Saints, Harlow Hill
Church of All Saints, Harlow Hill

Created by Storye book (talk). Self-nominated at 21:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC).

  • Church of All Saints, Harlow Hill: created 29 January; article exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout; I am not sure what the "British Listed Buildings" ref adds, the text is duplicated by the more reliable Historic England site; there is a minor error in one of the access date which is shown as "10 March 2014"; What makes the "Forebears" and "You Haven't Lived" sites reliable sources? No copyright violations noticed, there are a few similarities to the listing but these are mostly common phrasings.
  • Isaac Thomas Shutt: article created 29 January; article is well written and cited inline throughout to largely reliable sources for the material; a little heavy on primary sources and we need to be careful that comparison of historic photographs doesn't constitute original research; The "Open Plaques" reference just goes to a general Harrogate page that doesn't support the material; What makes the "Workhouses.org" page reliable? I didn't notice any copyright violations;
  • Alfred Hill Thompson: article created 29 January; article is well written and cited inline throughout to largely reliable sources; again somewhat heavy on the primary material and some of the conclusions based on comparisons of historic photos could constitute original research; what makes "A History of Rawdon" reliable?
  • Other: Image is appropriately and freely licensed; hook is mentioned in the church article and citation checks out to Historic England; QPQs have been carried out.
A lot of work has gone into these articles and it would be great to see them on the main page, but I am a little concerned at present by the quality of some of the sources and elements of original research - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your prompt and comprehensive review of this triple - much appreciated!
  • Church of All Saints. The British Listed Buildings ref. adds a map that is useful, unlike the Historic England map. The Historic England page is up to date (as far as they can manage), unlike the British Listed Buildings page. However I'll remove the BLB refs if you want. The 2014 access dates are genuine. Most of the content of the three articles was created in 2014, then abandoned in my userpages due to family illness, bereavement and all that follows. So 2014 is correct as an access date. This month I have rescued these articles (plus one other) and double-checked that all ref links are live. I can replace or remove the access dates if you require. I have removed the Forebears ref and the You Haven't Lived ref.
  • Isaac Thomas Shutt I'm not sure what you mean by "comparison of historic photographs", or what that has to do with OR. I understand that the main intent of WP's discouragement of OR is that either it can produce no evidence, or that a WP editor's interpretation of primary sources may be problematic. However sometimes images can be produced as evidence, and then it is up to the reader to interpret. If you let me know which photos our are talking about, maybe we can sort this out. I have corrected the link for Open Plaques; it now goes to a transcription of the plaque on the Royal Pump room, Which credits Leonard Clarke. The Workhouses website is by Peter Higginbotham, a locally respected researcher and academic. See his Linkedin page for his credentials. If you don't like Linkedin, I could track down his books on Amazon for you to prove they exist?
  • Alfred Hill Thompson Leodis is a Leeds Library site and is reliable because it's a city library established in the 19th century, employing trained and highly qualified staff. In the article and in the refs I am not interpreting the Leodis images; I am repeating the text alongside them. The reliability of the History of Rawdon site is explained here. It is based on extracts from "A History of Rawdon" by the locally respected D.C. Willcock, son of Harry Willcock.
  • Original research. Where is the original research? Are you worried because you can't read the newspaper articles? If you were in the UK, you could get a library card from most large city libraries, and use the library card number to access the British Library newspaper collection for free. So potentially any UK resident can access the 19th newspaper references in this article for free. Or if you are not in the UK, you can pay to view, or possibly view for free via a university/college/school library facility. I have referenced everything, and everything can be checked. I have taken hundreds of photos and linked their Commons categories to each article, so you can check by looking. The worry about OR is a worry about being misled, which is fair enough, but there is no chance of me misleading you here. If you think that pre-1923 images count as OR, you are mistaken. They are historical documents. I have purchased at my own expense, and uploaded to Commons, what must now be hundreds of pre-1923 postcards of buildings and places, and CDVs of people long dead, relevant to articles that I have created, or wish to contribute to. Commons is fortunate that people like me contribute them. Those photos are not about OR; they are contributions of visual information about the past, which cannot be communicated in any other way. You can't fully explain what a building looks like without a genuine original picture, especially if it was demolished long ago, and the ID of most buildings is often indisputable in this case, because most postcards have the name of the building on the front. This is not about disputing your review, it's about an attempt to correct any misunderstandings. I hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Storye book. Thanks for your quick and detailed reply. Hope you don't think I am being overly pedantic. I really like these articles, they are the sort of thing the Wikipedia can offer that isn't covered well anywhere else; I just want to make sure there aren't any issues when they appear on the main page. To cover the points in order:
Church of All Saints
  • Maybe it's worth adding the BLB ref in a "further reading" section if it is not being used to support the text?
  • I am happy with your explanation of the access dates (the page history only starts in 2019 so I couldn't see they were written earlier)
Isaac Thomas Shutt
  • I am happy now with the image being used if it is only providing additional information (as appears to be the case) and is not the basis for the text in the article. I think it would be more usual to separate such notes from the main references (see for example in Zaian War)
  • I am now happy that Higgenbotham is a suitable expert in this field
  • Open Plaques link is now good
Alfred Hill Thompson
  • I am happy that Leodis is reliable based on the info provided
  • I am happy to assume Willcock is reliable based on your say so
  • Again happy with the images in the references if they are being used to provide additional info (though do consider if these can be separated from the main references to avoid confusion)
Original research
  • My concern was if you were using the historic photographs to support assertions made in the article text. From you explanation above this does not seem to be the case
I think all of my original concerns have been allayed (sorry for any misunderstandings) and I am now happy to give this an AGF tick - Dumelow (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe I have now fulfilled all your requests in your latest comment. However this is the first time I've attempted ref notes markup. I got it right in the Shutt article, but I've messed up in the Thompson article, and cannot find the error. Please could you kindly let me know where the markup is wrong? Thanks. Storye book (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Storye book. It was because the text part of the note contained an equals sign (in the url). This screws up most templates as they expect anything before the equals to define a parameter. The workaround is to set the text as field 1 (ie by prefacing it with "1="). There's a bit more info at Help:Template#Usage_hints_and_workarounds. I think I've sorted it at Thompson's article now? - Dumelow (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Woohoo! I am so grateful. Thank you! Storye book (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Isaac_Thomas_Shutt,_Alfred_Hill_Thompson,_Church_of_All_Saints,_Harlow_Hill&oldid=885472837"