Template:Did you know nominations/Fenwick Club

The following discussion 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 Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Fenwick Club

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Cincinnati's Fenwick Club was established as a Catholic alternative to the YMCA?

• Comment: It's close to my bedtime, so no review. Ping me if I don't come back and do a review by the time you've reviewed this nomination.

5x expanded by Nyttend (talk). Self nominated at 04:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

• Reviewed {{Did you know nominations/Julián Ladera}}. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• - An interesting fact that would make a good DYK. Offline source to support hook. AGF. 5x expansion verified. Would, however, love to see the article separated into sections. A few assertions requiring verification are without footnotes. Eg. "In 1973, the Fenwick Club's annex building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, becoming the seventh downtown building with this distinction; it qualified both because of its historically significant architecture and because of its place in local history." EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Um, why wasn't I told that you had objections? Please don't hold up a nomination by objecting without telling the nominator. Sections wouldn't be helpful in this article because of its short size — each paragraph is on a substantially different subject, so we wouldn't want to put two paragraphs in one section and one in the other; and the shortness of each paragraph means that each one-paragraph section would be unhelpfully small. Thank you for the reminder on the sentence in question, since that wasn't derived from citation #5, but what other content do you see that needs citation correction? Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• My apologies for not pinging you with the initial queries. I still have a few concerns. I'm assuming that this citation is used to support the contents of the entire paragraph from "The structure was also built of brick". However this citation does not yield much information. Could you provide a source that describes the building's structure? Additionally the article stipulates that the Annex is still on the national register but here it says the building has being delisted. I'm not sure how this works but it appears a bit contradictory to me. EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying your meaning. First off, on the delisting, let me give you a little background: Ohio has lots of NR sites that have been destroyed, including this one that was demolished in 1978 — one year before it got added to the NR! Some of these have been removed from the Register, such as the Hotel Breakers, but most are still on the Register despite their destruction. A location's NR status is defined by the National Park Service, not by the SHPO (the Ohio Historical Society is the SHPO for Ohio), and in the NR database (citation #1 in this article), its entry still says that it's listed. I contacted OHS some months back, asking about the discrepancy, but they didn't reply, and the recent listings page hasn't had any substantial number of Ohio delistings since that time. More details will be supplied if you ask for them. Secondly As far as the paragraph: scroll down to the bottom of the source page to see the materials mentioned in the second sentence of the paragraph. Everything else is derived from the photograph, which plainly displays the two dormer windows in the steep roof, the division into bays, the gables atop some bays, the windows in most bays, and the entrance and balcony in the middle bay. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification on the listing/delisting issue. Regarding the second concern I'm still not comfortable. You indicate that it's plain to see from the photo that the building has x dormer windows etc. But isn't that considered original research? - Based on your own assessment of the photo. For the purposes of verification I recommended including a citation for the description of the Annex' structure. Otherwise omit it from the article since it's not verified by the source used. EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's not original research: it's directly in there, directly attributable to the source. Original research is things "such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", including "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Everything I'm presenting is directly dependent on the source page. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate your attempts to clarify but I'm still not convinced after doing some checks. However I don' think this issue is grave enough to prevent the DYK. Going ahead and giving my vote of approval but am still asking that you provide a better citation for the description of the building's structure. EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Good to go. In addition to checks already made - no copyvio noticed nor close paraphrasing. Hook length is good and fact is interesting. EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)