Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [1].

List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana

edit
Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Since the last FLC, I have added alt text, removed information not covered in the references, and improved the related articles. Reywas92Talk 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. It was in the templated map. Reywas92Talk 00:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan
Comments
  • James Whitcomb Riley House links to a disambig.
    • That was fixed above, but the tool hasn't updated it, unless it's hiding somewhere.
  • ...Courthouse is an unusual combination.. I don't like the word "unsual". A bit too weasely.
    • Changed to "unique"
  • Classocal revivial architecture Spelling.
    • Fixed
  • 200-foot Shouldn't this be plural?
    • No, it's used as an adjective.
  • 192-foot Again, plural?
    • No, again, it's used as an adjective.
  • 210 feet Hyphenate like you did above.
    • No, it's not used as an adjective.
  • Template:National Register of Historic Places doesn't have a link to this article.
    • It's not required to. That is standard to all NRHP articles.
  • It was mentioned in a previous review that ref 14 doesn't specifically mention the construction date. This has not been fixed.
    • Changed.
  • Again, a previous review mentioned that ref 7 for Angel Mounds doesn't define it as a regional center. I suggest you take another look at Nev1's comments in the previous FLC.

I will continue my review when I feel the issues above as well as the issues from the previous FLC have been resolved.—NMajdan•talk 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still not convinced all sourcing issues have been resolved. I picked one random citation, #39 for General Lew Wallace Study, and the citation given says nothing of him being a Governor, nothing about being a minister, nothing about being designed by Lew Wallace and nothing about being a Ben-Hur museum (just says museum).—NMajdan•talk 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.
    • And I do apologize for not providing a more thorough review; work has been a bit more hectic since the beginning of the year and I'm generally not very active on weekends. Here are some more (and I don't feel it is my duty to verify each and every source):
      • Citation 28: Doesn't say anything about the 1982 conversion.
        • Fixed. See the name of the linked article.
      • Citation 31: Doesn't say anything about this being the last building designed by the architect before his death. Also doesn't say anything about being an oculus allowing light into the sanctuary.
        • Fixed.
      • Citation 40: Doesn't say anything about Walker being the first self-made female millionare.
        • Fixed.
    • I'm sure there are more given how I was again 3/3 on the sources I inspected.—NMajdan•talk 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the nominator, are you sure you have identified and corrected all instances where the text does not reconcile with the source attributed to it? I have now raised this issue multiple times and have provided nearly half a dozen examples. Frankly, if I look again and find another, my final vote will be oppose.—NMajdan•talk 16:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been discussed below (and argued some elsewhere, previously) that by the nature of this list being an index of well-sourced articles, the list-article can be regarded as well-sourced although not every unsurprising detail is explicitly sourced on this page. For example, discussed below is the 210 foot height of the memorial in "Indiana World War Memorial Plaza HD" and the fact that is not in the NHL summary webpage which is footnoted. Note User:Nev1 who focussed on detailed referencing in earlier review seems receptive about this. If a fact is surprising or controversial, I agree it should be explicitly sourced, as in any article. Non-surprising/non-important/non-controversial facts do not require in-line citations in wikipedia articles, including FAs. So, I would hope you could focus your concern on facts that you feel need sourcing, and not be unduly irked by a gotcha-type discovery about something that in the larger scheme is not so important. I do appreciate your attention to detail here and elsewhere, though, and I don't mean to imply that good sourcing is unimportant for Featured Lists. It clearly is important; I just think there can be overkill in sourcing that makes some list-articles less helpful for readers. doncram (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sourcing is my only concern for this article. I don't completely disagree with you and as long as the FL directors are aware of this, then this list has my support.—NMajdan•talk 20:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There shouldn't be any other problems. Reywas92Talk 00:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - nice illustrated list, but a few things for me...
  • Four "Indiana"s in the opening two sentences - this could use some variation, e.g. "the state"?
    • Done
  • Weren't natives "early settlers" or do you settlers to mean Europeans here?
    • Done
  • You link Indiana a little later than you could.
    • Done
  • "They illustrate the state's industrial and architectural heritage, as well as battles, circuses, education, and several other topics" to me this reads that "They illustrate the states ... battles, circuses, education.." - do you mean that? or do you mean they also illustrate the state's battle heritage, circus heritage, education heritage? Just reads a little strangely to me...
    • Well I wouldn't say we have a battle or education heritage. I'm not sure what to say.
  • Don't think you need (a ship) in parentheses, you could just have ", a ship that was ..."
    • Done
  • Are the NHL criteria the same as the predetermined criteria you mention?
    • Yes, I think so. Where do you mean?
  • You use light-blue only for designating National Historic Landmark. Is this because you're assuming you don't need a symbol (per WP:ACCESS) by virtue of the fact you have only two categories and the other does have a symbol?
    • Yes. Symbol (+dark blue) is NHLD and no symbol (+light blue) is just NHL.
  • Why is Landmark name in bold?
    • Removed
  • Why abbreviate the date? The column is wide enough for a full month.
    • Yes, but that depends on your computer size and it would take away from the other columns.
  • Our Beaux-Arts on Wikipedia is hyphenated.
    • Done
  • "Classical Revival" or "Classical revival"?
    • Revival
  • You don't link modern architecture but you do link modern-style (to neoclassicism).
    • Both linked
  • "He would later be" could just be "He later became..."
    • Done
  • "The 500 is the largest single-day sporting event in the world" in what context?
    • Attendance
  • "and influenced future bank" - subsequent instead of future.
    • Done
  • "place for both Indians and whites " just a quick check, 'cos I'm a dumb European, do you still use "Indians" in this sense?
    • Yes, both Indians and Native Americans are acceptable terms, though the latter is considered politically correct.
  • "It is a fine example of Greek Revival style from architect Francis Costigan amd is now a museum" fine in whose opinion? And fix the "amd" typo.
    • Done
  • Since this list is sortable, I would have thought we should link things like Italianate in every instance as there's no guarantee which one appears first after a re-sort.
    • Done
  • Blank image cell for the quilter house, would be better off as an en-dash so it doesn't just look as if something's gone missing. Same for any others.
    • Done
  • I don't like the split off table of one former landmark. Perhaps this is the format used elsewhere but it looks odd to have a single-row sortable table. I would add it with a note in the descriptions column.\
    • I think it would be inapproprate to include inde it with the others, and other states have this. I removed the sortability.
  • See also has History of Indiana which you already link to the in lead.
    • Done
  • Not directly relevant but the templates are different shades of blue. Why not make them the same, at least for the NHL/NHL in Indiana template?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well the NHLs in IN one should be the same as the general NRHP one. I reordered to put the same colors together.

Thanks for the help! Reywas92Talk 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "approximately 1,687 " very precise for an approximation.
    • That is the total number, but more are always being added.
  • Ordering of first column is odd, despite the note, and means you cannot (as far as I can tell) restore the list back to numerical order. Can you do it?
    • The number column is also sortable.
      • Yes, that's what I mean, the number column does not sort numerically so once you've sorted per something, you can never get the list back in numerical order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see what you mean. If I play with the sorting of the other columns and then go back to the number it's in the original numerical order.
          • Not in Safari. It sorts four ways. I would guess it's down to the symbols you're using. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure it would make a difference just by browser. It works for me, so I wouldn't how to fix it without taking out the important symbols. Reywas92Talk 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm surprised you think all browsers work the same way! (for instance this site seems to imply there could be various issues). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • You don't have to be rude about it. I would expect the sorting to be more of a Wikipedia thing. Could you please play with it? Obviously I would have no idea if it works for you unless I strip it down to just the numbers, which shouldn't be done. Reywas92Talk 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, if it appeared I was I being rude then forgive me. Just that being a Mac user we're often overlooked since we utterly never use "Internet Explorer". Sometimes the way "we" see the internet is different from everyone else. All I'm saying is that there seem to be issues. Don't forget, it's just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Which brings up a question. Is there an easy way to see how a page renders with different browsers? I know with Firefox and IE tab, I can easily look at those two browsers. But I don't know how to check Safari short of downloading it, which I am not inclined to do.—NMajdan•talk 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Looks like you need to replace the {{NHLsm}} and {{NRHPlegend}} templates with something that sorts correctly. I'm also not a fan of how the latter links you to Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend, which is just another key/legend. Seems like that whole thing would violate WP:ACCESS.—NMajdan•talk 21:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've changed all to the NHRPlegend template. I'll keep testing the template to see if I get anywhere. Reywas92Talk 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not sure whether NMajdan refers to some link to the Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend other than the one in a footnote phrase "defined here", from footnote explaining the first column. Given that the article has an explicit key section defining the only two colors used in this article, the "defined here" link to the NRHP colors legend is not needed though. The footnote explaining the first column is still needed, to explain the ordering is by first "significant" word and that the numbering should not be interpreted as something too highly significant. It seems the table is sorting properly by that number column now. By the way, the table can be sorted to its original order in any browser, I believe, by refreshing the page. But it is helpful to have the first column be sortable to provide that option of sorting explicitly. doncram (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Comments

  • The article seems well developed on explaining the NHL designation process. For example the guidelines at Title 36, Part 65 are linked, although maybe with one extra step required to get to that (not sure if my linking here will work, either). The statements all seem accurate to me, except maybe there is a little bit of over-emphasis on the National Park Service staff making the recommendations. The guidelines anticipate that state officials and "other parties" other than National officials will make recommendations (which then the NPS would evaluate and come to its own recommendations about). The possibility that state officials or private owners will nominate a property for NHL designation should be admitted, as that does happen (or technically they may be "recommending" rather than "nominating" their property for NHL status, if "nominating" is technically to be reserved for referring to the National Park Service's step in the process, while "nominating" as an English language word is what they are in fact doing).
  • Indiana is different than many other states in that none of its NHLs are also National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, or other types of National Park Service units covering sites of historical importance. Indiana does have two non-NHL, NRHP-listed NPS units, the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, which should be at least mentioned in the article, IMO. The National Park Service does make a point of mentioning these two non-NHLs in its official list of NHLs (the mention is on page 114 of the nation-wide PDF list that is the first reference in this article, or on the same page of the Indiana-specific PDF list of NHLs that the NPS also provides, not linked from this article). I believe it is appropriate to follow their lead in the Wikipedia list-article about the Indiana NHLs. These two sites are comparable to a NHL and, if the sites were not NPS units, they probably would be designated as NHLs. There is no specific source I can point to right now about this, but places which are NPS units already often do not get NHL designation, presumably because there are no significant additional benefits in terms of tax incentives or otherwise, for a site that is already a NPS unit. The George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and the Lincoln boyhood memorials are the only other contenders, anyhow, besides the NHLs, for being among the most important historic sites in the state that are recognized by the Federal government. This list-article, mainly covering the NHLs, is improved by covering these 2 in addition, so that it covers all of the most highly recognized sites of national historical importance in the state. I personally would want to include location information including coordinates for these, so that the Google/Bing map links are more useful to readers, too. doncram (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe this was discussed in the previous FLC. With all due respect, I think that only NHLs should be listed on this List of NHLs. And, in fact, the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial is both a NMEM and NHL, but it is called Lincoln Boyhood Home. Reywas92Talk 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just did notice the Lincoln Boyhood Home is both an NHL and NMEM too, and I added NMEM color and a symbol to the Key and changed its entry to show that.
      • Yes, whether to separately list the non-NHL NPS historic places has been discussed some before; i have not revisited what was said in the previous FLC. Reywas92, I take it your view is that having a separate table for them (just the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park in this case) is not what you want. While I would prefer having that, and including location and coordinates info for it, as I believe that readers interested in NHLs in IN are well served by having that. It is a lesser step, though, to just include mention of the place in the text. Can we just do that, which is part of clarifying what the NHLs are, anyhow (they are among the most important nationally-recognized historic sites in the state, but there's at least one other roughly equivalent site). I'll try making an edit to add some mention somewhere, to have something specific to discuss. doncram (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see in the first FLC, Reywas92, your view was "I wouldn't oppose a see also or a mention in the lead, but these do not belong in an NHL list". I tried adding a mention of the one NHP into the text. Is that okay? doncram (talk)
        • Looks fine to me. Thanks! But for Lincoln, it is both an NHLD and NMEM. How should that be marked with the colors? I think it should use the NHLD color because that is what the list is describing. Reywas92Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the table is all NHLs/NHLDs, that is understood. Whether one is further a relatively rarer National Historic Site, National Memorial, etc. is usefully indicated by a color of that. That is how the wider system of NRHP lists is devised: in NRHP lists, all NRHPs are indeed NRHPs but we don't apply just NRHP blue color to every one, we have used different colors to indicate NHLs and NHLDs and NHSs etc amongst the mere NRHPs. For consistency with use of the colors in all other NRHP lists and all other NHL lists, this one should show the relatively rare NMEM color. doncram (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About sourcing: the issue on sourcing opened in the first FLC, mostly in comments by Nev1, seems still open. There are facts stated in many of the descriptions which do not appear in the NHL summary webpages that are given as the sources. For example, specifics in the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza Historic District entry do not appear in its NHL summary webpage. As I stated in the closing minutes of the first FLC, I would support the descriptions being summaries of their corresponding articles as they are now, without representation that they are fully sourced from the NHL summary webpages (which is not accurate). I do want to support the FL candidacy of this article without requiring excessive footnoting, without requiring all the references that appear in each of the corresponding articles. But I would hope FL status be given with some more explicit understanding consensus of what's being done. doncram (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had removed excess information not in the references so nearly everything should be covered by them. Reywas92Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear for one example, the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza HD description mentions" it is 210 feet (64 m) tall" and that is not in the NHL summary webpage which is footnoted. I personally do not feel that the height is a controversial assertion requiring a separate footnote to the NRHP document, say. I assume the height is accurately/adequately sourced in the corresponding article about the HD. I think this is fine, but then I would prefer for a footnote to the title of the descriptions column be given that clarifies some non-controversial facts are sourced in the corresponding articles. I had composed and/or applied such a footnote in the NY NHL list-article. doncram (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To conclude, I support promotion to FL. I've reviewed the article again, think it is very good, and I have no remaining concerns. Nice job! doncram (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
  • The main map image requires alt text.
  • "There are 37 National Historic Landmarks in the state, which are located in 22 of the its 92 counties." Excess "the" in this sentence.
  • I find the first paragraph of the lead to be slightly overlinked, in particular the battle, circus and education links back-to-back-to-back. These are common terms and don't require the links, especially when there are so many valuable links later in the lead.
  • All caps should be removed from references 2 and 15. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From a quick sample of the sources (I don't have time to do as detailed a review as I did last time), but they seem mostly sorted. Most examples of prose being lifted straight from the source and of details creeping in from elsewhere have been addressed. I'd prefer it to be dealt with completely, and believe that with just 42 sources, the list is a long way from being "excessively" footnoted, but the height issue is incredibly minor. After the comments from everyone else, and as my own concerns from the previous FLC have been addressed, I am happy to support the list. Good job Reywas, I'm glad to see this back at FLC! Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_National_Historic_Landmarks_in_Indiana/archive2&oldid=1089079454"