Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Perry County, Tennessee/archive1

Perry County, Tennessee

Featured article candidates/Perry County, Tennessee/archive1

Nominator(s): nf utvol (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rural, sparsely populated county in Tennessee. It has been continually improved since reaching Good Article status in 2022, and was recommended to take to FAC by peer review in 2023. Additional updates, modifications, changes, and improvements have been done since then, and it's about as good as I can get it. Sources have been exhaustively researched and statements cited. At this point, I am running out of additional sources to keep building the page from, so I think it's as good a time as any to start the FAC process. Thanks in advance! nf utvol (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

Suggest scaling up the maps

File:Perry_County_Courthouse_(1868).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Noah_Harder.png

File:USA_Perry_County,_Tennessee.csv_age_pyramid.svg is tagged as lacking sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Added alt text to everything and scaled up the maps a bit. Let me know if you think they should be bigger. Regarding the image publication info, the info on their sourcing is in the file page on Commons, but they're both items in the collections of the Tennessee State Library and Archives. The exact original publication date and author are unknown, but they are both listed as out of copyright. Regarding the age pyramid, I went ahead and removed it. I'll work on building an updated one with sourcing. Thanks again for the image review!!! nf utvol (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything at the source link for the first item regarding copyright status - could you clarify where that's coming from? On the second, I see a claim it is out of copyright, but not one specific to the given tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again and you're correct about Perry_County_Courthouse_(1868).jpg, it doesn't have a copyright status on that page, however the courthouse depicted in this image burned in 1928. Additionally, the image was mounted on a card that had an estimated date of 1900 on it (I pulled the physical copy from the library and scanned it to get a higher resolution image), hence the date in the image's page. Using the library's date of 1900, that would put it as before the 1903 guideline listed in WP:PD for unpublished works where the author's identity is unknown. Regarding the Noah_Harder.png, I updated the tag to just reflect no copyright instead of copyright expired since that better represents the notice on the source page. nf utvol (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I don't have time for a full review, but I do have some concerns.

" "It's Just Our Nature". YouTube. Retrieved March 14, 2022." - what makes a youtube video from "patvb2003" (with less than 2,000 views and the channel with 5 subscribers as of the time I'm posting this) a high-quality reliable source?

I should be able to source the information from this elsewhere, that particular source should have probably been removed long ago anyway. Anything that can't be sourced I'll remove.

"Cedar Grove Iron Furnace". The Historical Marker Database. Archived from the original on March 15, 2022. Retrieved March 15, 2022." - this source is user-generated
" "Perryville First County Seat of Perry County". HMdb.org. Retrieved October 2, 2023." - also user-generated

For the HMdb.org entries, while the source itself is user generated, it is in turn sourced to a historical marker inscription. If that's not acceptable, then I think for most of this information I can find a different/better source, or just source the marker itself...let me know your thoughts.

"Younger, Lillye. "Perry County, Tennessee". Decatur Co. TNGenWeb. Archived from the original on March 14, 2022. Retrieved March 14, 2022." - what makes this local genealogical source a high-quality RS?

Younger is a historian who has been published by a university press (see here). My reading of WP:NOTRELIABLE leads me to believe this is enough to establish some level of subject matter expertise that would allow a self-published page to pass the bar for reliability for non-BLP related items. Considering this, if this is still too questionable, I'll see if I can find separate references.

" Duncan, James Carl (2013). Adventures of a Tennessean. AuthorHouse. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-4817-4157-6." - what makes this self-published book a high-quality RS

I'll see if I can find a separate source, if not I'll pull that sentence and source.

"Tennessee River Flood Stages Data". Parsons Weather. ParsonsWeather.com." - what makes this a high-quality RS?

So this is pretty borderline, I'll admit. It's a self-described "weather hobbyist" site from a group that provides information to the CWOP. I'll see if I can find additional sourcing from the NOAA or other government/academic sources.

" "Tennessee Population Density County Rank". USA.com. World Media Group. Archived from the original on March 15, 2022. Retrieved March 15, 2022." - what makes this website a high-quality RS?

I see the concerns here, but it's nothing more than a compilation of otherwise publicly available census data that appears to pass a spot check for accuracy. I'll see if I can find it in another form from a different source, though. Surely the Census Bureau has this information in a pretty digestible format.

" "Domino 4328 – The Pickard Family – 1929". Old Time Blues. Retrieved February 27, 2024." - this is somebody's personal website. What makes it high-quality RS?

Let me dig to see if I can find another source for this. If not, I'll remove it and the associated information (as well as the associated sourcing and information on The Pickard Family).

""Domestic Names Search". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved March 7, 2024." - this is being used to support the existence of a place as an "unincorporated community". This source is not appropriate for that; see WP:GNIS

I'll pare down this list to only those with non-GNIS sourcing. I was under the mistaken impression that GNIS could be used for sourcing for lists such as this, but should not be used to establish greater notability for individual articles.

Overall, I have concerns about the sourcing not being up to the FA standard. Hog Farm _Talk 02:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial review, I'll start working on these and any others that might be of concern! Any further advice/recommendations is appreciated! nf utvol (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]