Talk:Mummy Cave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mummy Cave has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 25, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

Comments for the GA reviewer[edit]

Just want to let you know — because this is a secluded location, getting a photograph of the site is likely to be very difficult. As you can see here, it's possible to get pictures of the site, but as one would have no real reason to photograph this site if one didn't know about its significance, finding a free picture will be extremely unlikely. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure about this but you might want to search WikiCommons for a public domain photo. In certain cases (if the permission meets WC's requisites), photos from Flickr can be used if moved to WC with the right permissions. Additionally some photos that are produced by the U.S. government (read geological services or park management) might qualify under a certain permission if they are commissioned or taken for government work. --Morenooso (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Problem is that I've searched and not found anything. The only images that I've found are (1) this one, copyrighted by the Wyoming state government, and (2) ones such as the link I gave above; while it's published by the NPS, I get the impression that the authors were not working for the NPS, so the work is likely under full copyright. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You would be surprised. I am trying to remember what which CA wikiproject RR article has a map image that is PD because it was commissioned by the CA state. It's been a while since I dealt with the CA WP in those terms and the image permissions may have changed. I just did an advanced search on Yahoo for PD images and none were available. Doing the same search only for websites that are dot gov yields dot gov search. It may be that one of those 50 plus sites has something. They also might be possible reliable source documents. --Morenooso (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I looked through plenty of sources; among other things, Wyoming doesn't release its images into the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mummy Cave/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jappalang (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As of this revision this revision this version,


    How do you use this system to source the NHRP's "placement [of the cave] on the National Register of Historic Places in 1981"?
    Two ways — (1) click "Name" under "Search by Category", when there select "State and Resource Name" and proceed from there. (2) click "Download Center", then select "All NRIS data in dbf format", and download the database, which gives dates for when all National Register properties were placed on the Register. The information was derived from the (2) option; if you want to download it, look in the "CERTDATE" column of the "PROPMAIN" table for the date on which any property (including Mummy Cave) was certified as being on the National Register. Except for the location data, the information given in the infobox was taken from this infobox generator run by User:Elkman, which takes data directly from the (2) database; of course, you can verify the information yourself if you have the database. Although I've downloaded the database myself and set it up to be able to use it properly, I don't remember how to set it up (I must note that you need to have Microsoft Access; I'm not sure whether OpenOffice can open it), so you'd probably do well to ask Elkman if you need help; I needed his guidance when I did it. Sorry, but I don't know too much about the way databases work. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    I believe the site has undergone changes. After selecting "State and Resource Name", I am brought to an interface that has no "Download Center". Instead it asks for the state code and the site's name; entering "wy" and "Mummy Cave" would bring me the listing. I believe, however, that this is quite a convoluted sourcing (you have to at least inform the verifier how to navigate to the interface...). Might I suggest using the corrected Wyoming state site above (, which has the registration date as well, instead? Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    No, because the source provided is the official source for the National Register, unlike the Wyoming site, which is entirely dependent on it and thus not official. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    I do not think "official"-ness plays a part here since Wikipedia's verification policy is based mostly on reliability. Both are reliable sites (otherwise why would the Wyoming site be used?). I would think that the National Register is a primary source (since they are the direct source of the information—they created it), but the Wyoming site is one too (they parrot the National Register, and as a official state body would have an image of reliability to uphold). I am not going to put this as an opposable issue, as you can see, the reference section in the checklist below is an "aye" (since both sites in my view are equally reliable, just that the link to one is not as accessible as the other), but I am leaving it unstruck in case others would like to comment on this. Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    That's not what I meant to convey; sorry for confusing you. My reason for saying what I did is that the National Register database, being the official source, is more reliable — (1) it defines what's on the Register and what isn't, and the dates it gives are by definition correct, and (2) when we derive our pages from the database directly, there's only one chance to have a transcription error, but if we derive our pages from a page derived from the database, there are two chances for transcription errors. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    The theoretical permanent link to the NRHP nomination is here [1]. However, the National Park Service has a blanket policy of restricting data on archeological sites to prevent pot-hunters from ruining the sites, so there's no document available. This despite the fact that the site's fully excavated, has been featured on an award-winning poster by the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, and is clearly shown on the location map associated with the Husted article. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


  • Not an opposable issue, but is it possible to get a photo of the cave entrance?
    Just read the Talk page; still, it would help to improve the page if one would hike there and take a shot. Jappalang (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    I definitely agree, but I'm in Ohio and Acroterion is farther east, so it's going to be a long hike :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    I might be in the area sometime this summer, but it won't be this week. It's right along the highway, so it's more like finding the right place, parking and taking a pic. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Can be improved, see comments above.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Dead links, see above.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Google Book shows 450 hits on Wyoming's Mummy Cave.[2] Just to check, is everything major about this historic place written here?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    See above for accuracy of the base map.
  7. Overall:
    On hold, awaiting nominator's feedback and actions. Jappalang (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Passing this article for GA. Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Links dead?[edit]

Following most of the links will now lead you directly to a 404 page. What to do? --Kurt von Hammerstein (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I only saw two 404 errors: the NPS webpage and the first one from the Biffalo Buff Historical Center. The best answer is normally to find an archived edition, so I went to (the Internet Archive) and looked for both pages; it didn't have any older copies of the BBHC page, but it had the NPS page, so I replaced the URL. I don't have any good suggestions for the BBHC page. Note, however, that it's being used just once, and for a short fact; if you can find another reliable source (print or currently online) with the same information, you could just replace the old citation with the new one. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
PS, I found a new link, an online version of a newspaper article mentioning the bit about Smith. Since it was originally published in print, and since I can construct the complete citation without a link, I didn't bother with an accessdate, but I did include a link to the digital edition (it's hosted by a large newspaper-hosting website, something that wouldn't have extensive holdings without permission, so WP:COPYLINK isn't an issue) for the sake of convenience. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)