Talk:Beck's Mill

Beck's Mill was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 4, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

United States: Indiana / Louisville Mid‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Mid-importance).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mills Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills 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.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

The May 21 Curious-Urinal article said the mill was built in 1845, but since every other source lists this mill as built in 1864, I'm staying with that year.--Bedford 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-class

I think this article can be considered B-class? Anyone agree?--Bedford 01:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review notes

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.^[?]
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dincher 20:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

The mill is scheduled to be opened in Spring 2008, with a working wheel. When that happens, I will take more photos. We'll have before, during, and after.

I found some stuff from a book of Washington County History. If I can find it, I'll fill the article in.--Bedford (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

The lead needs to be longer to touch on more facets of the body of the article. It seems unusual that the JH Morgan incident is mentioned in the lead but not discussed below and that there is no indication how the building of the mill might fit in with the ransom incident. Lead should mention how the mill has changed since it was built, at the moment it doesn’t
”historic” or “disused” seems to be more appropriate than old Done
Geography section needs inline refs and needs to be expanded if possible or integrated with another section
History section needs to be sourced.
Do we know more about the first two mills and what the architecture of their structures and the details of the building were?
The “11 by 11” comment isn’t understanding to the laymen what it means at all
Do we know anything about the demolition of the two original mills?
”heyday” something more sedate would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Done
Needs to be more about the evolution form 1864 to 1914, especially about the settlement that sprung up and its social effects if possible
Tornado sentence needs to be integrated. Other one line paras need to be integrated.
Need some more about the decline and neglect of the mill if possible
”overly enthusiastic trespassers” elaborate? What did they do? Done
Nelson’s prize- was this a lottery or a merit award etc? Done
The NRHP info needs expanding as to the process of accrediting the place and the citiation of the NRHP about the place’s selection
”and perhaps also due to Indians stealing three barrels of whiskey from George Beck.” Source required otherwise it sounds like OR
Inline refs need fixing. You need curly brackets
”This allowed the place to draw residents” nneds more formal wording
General refs should be in a separate section “References” and the inlines under “notes”

The article needs a cleanup. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on the problems, but we might need more than a week, as I need to get with HLFI as they took down what they had about the Mill on their website, plus Thanksgiving will screw things up.--Bedford (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I don't follow the 7 day rule if there is steady progress. I once waited for three weeks....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this article because it seems that there is no work being done now or in the forseeable future. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I could not find the paper in which I found citations for various items on this article. I'll repropose at a later date, when I can find that paper.--Bedford 06:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP rating and NRHP source doc suggestion

I am downrating the article from "B" to "Start" for my view of the perspective of WP:NRHP, as the article does not source official NRHP documents that are available or potentially other sources that would describe the NRHP designation. Text and photos copies of the NRHP registration and/or NRHP inventory nomination documents are available upon request from the National Park Service. These docs are usually 10-30 pages, written by historians, include photos, diagrams, maps, and are definitive sources for much detail about the site. To obtain, send email request to nr_reference at nps.gov, expect to receive in a week or two by postal mail. This would provide a good source for the article that may allow addressing other of the Good Article reviewers' concerns. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Kentucky, there's a guy at the state historic office who will e-mail PDFs of any of these forms... there might be a similar arrangement in Indiana. Also I've been told they're available on microfilm at the University of Louisville in the Art Library, but I haven't personally verified this. It stands to reason they're at other college libraries. The reports themselves are kind of hit or miss... sometimes the report has a small book worth of info, other times it's 2 pages of stuff you already had sources for. But the reports are useful to have for NRHP sites. Also they sometimes have photos we can't recapture... either because the building is gone or it's not open to the public. Of course it's all public domain. --W.marsh 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an official NRHP document cited: that for the bridge, which did contain some information about the mill.--Bedford 03:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Beck's Mill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beck's Mill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724064346/http://www.purdue.edu/wbaa/ipbs/Scripts/050.htm to http://www.purdue.edu/WBAA/ipbs/Scripts/050.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]