This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article was just now started in a semi-automated way, and could use more attention, perhaps including use of sources that might be found online.
Please help! :) Try Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL)
Try, for National Park Service material: Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL
Or develop from the sources already included in the article! Thanks. --doncram 19:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor removed 3 sourced facts from the article: about the size of the property, about an alternative code/identifier for the property, and about the fact that the listed property includes a noncontributing structure as well as a contributing one. I think those are relevant and am inclined to restore them. Please discuss. I wouldn't mind having the identifier moved into the infobox, instead, but there is currently no field for that in the infobox (which could be remedied). I see no reason to lose the info though. --doncram 23:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The items I removed are all administrative details that likely are important to zoning authorities, the local property tax assessor, etc., but lack encyclopedic significance. The numerical code/identifier for the property is included in a reference citation, so it should not need to be recorded elsewhere in the article (similarly, the ISBN number of a book is not normally a subject for text discussion in an article). The business about the size of the lot being less than one acre is presumably related to the legal description of the property (of interest to tax assessor and zoning authority), but it's not awfully informative (we can't tell if it's 0.1 acre or 0.5 acre or 0.95 acre, and in any event it doesn't say anything about the historic building). The information on the nom form about the contributing building and the noncontributing building seems to have to do with the fact that there's a small storage building out back that isn't historic; that's possibly important information for the local historic zoning officer and the tax assessor to have in their records, but it's not of particular interest for an encyclopedia. Not everything that's documented by a reliable source belongs in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the property listed on the NRHP is definitely part of what is relevant to describe. I disagree on all points.
I hope that negative discussion here will not keep away prospectively interested local editors. Can any positive comments be made? Are there any interesting facts about the property which can be taken from the NRHP document, or found elsewhere, to add to this article? I'd be more interested in discussing those. --doncram 14:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has long appeared to me that bot-created content whose purpose is unclear to readers does not encourage new contributors -- rather, it discourages newbies. Better to have just one solid sentence than to have five sentences whose purpose and relevance cannot be discerned. If you are interested in building this article, there's plenty of good content in the source you cited -- and you could do a lot of good work in the time it take to whine that I'm not being positive enough for you. --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
