Talk:Kinne Cemetery/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 04:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman 04:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

"and includes the land of Thomas Kinne, also came from " who also came
"extant stone is for Daniel Kinne, died 1713" who died in 1713.
" At least 7 carvers" write out seven.
Cite the quote in 2nd para of importance.
"including the earliest stone for Daniel Kinne who died in 1713." we note the death twice previously, we don't need it a third time here.
My main concern is the sourcing. While i know not a lot would be out there, the fact that there are no sources in the article aside form the NRHP and Hale Collection websites is a concern. Certainly there's something else out there source-wise?

Article now on hold. Wizardman 14:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About sourcing, there are records, the NRHP lists many, but in terms of verification I greatly prefer being able to show the reader instead of taking from the cited source which they most certainly would not be able to access otherwise. Many of the records are also primary sources, so their use via a secondary document is much preferred for interpretation and weighing of the facts. I could certainly try to dig up more mentions, but this was a family cemetery is not subject to any of the modern procedures and rules governing it. It has also been more then a century since it was last used and only three burials were done since it was a more formally recognized. Perhaps it is a little low on appearances for sourcing and maybe some key text was left out from the originals. I'll double check to be safe. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be useful: [1] It's mainly useless local bits, but there's some cemetery knowledge in there as well. If nothing else it's an online third-party source. Wizardman 16:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added significantly to it, covering the one you mentioned and I found another from 2002 and one from 2007. Months ago I attempted to get in touch with the society which took care of the property nearly a decade ago, but I was told they were in "limbo". Unfortunately, nothing more has come up, but I think I will try and contact Arpin directly. This article was my first attempt at a historic cemetery, and in my own town we have 130 of them, but nothing rising to the NRHP significance. Taking care and even discovering some of these properties is an actual act of modern-day archeology because of how remote it is. Even still, good luck finding the Kinne Cemetery without Wikipedia! I'm glad that it no longer is a super-stub like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads a lot better now, as such I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman 00:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]