Talk:Peabody, Kansas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Kansas (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Important Tips Before Editing This Article[edit]

Please review the following:

  1. Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
  2. Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
  3. Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
  4. Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.
  5. Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

SbmeirowTalk • 15:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting more info on external web site[edit]

More information needs to be added after the City of Peabody puts the history on a web page, so we can link to it for reference. Most of Peabody history doesn't exist on the internet, thus it is impossible to put on Wikipedia since we don't have anything to reference. One of those chicken and the egg problems. Sbmeirow (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I see this is somewhat dated from June, but I would imagine there are printed histories available at the local library or historical society, or something similar. It looks like additional sources were added since this request was made. Just FYI, sources need not be on the Internet or in electronic format to be used in Wikipedia articles. Many books are only in printed format and also qualify as reliable sources. JonRidinger (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict with another article[edit]

According to our article Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and other sources, such as this, F. H. Peabody was never president of the AT&SF Railroad Co., although he was vice-president from 1874 to 1877 (which according to this article was after the town was named for him). Someone should probably sort the matter out. Deor (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, amazing find! Since it appears to be an official AF&SF document, I trust its history over Peabody and Kansas documents that might had editing mistakes. In different local documents and internet documents, I have seen his title listed as: executive, vice-president, president. In the past, people wouldn't question historical documents because they didn't have other references to dispute them, but the internet has changed everything. I think we should go with this new document, until someone can prove otherwise. Sbmeirow (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Grouped References[edit]

As an experiment, I converted BOOK and NRHP references to grouped references. See • 19:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As part of my experiment, I put the details for BOOK descriptions in the references section, and left the details for NRHP up in the article, just to evaluate how they work, and to see if I ran to into problems, which I didn't. • SbmeirowTalk • 01:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This format satisfies citation and verification requirements, but I don't think it's a good idea — we generally expect all of the references to be grouped together. If you look at academic papers that use footnotes or endnotes, you'll notice that the notes are always all together instead of being grouped by format; a works cited list may be grouped by format, but the citations themselves won't be. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Nyttend on this as well. I think this is a case of making it more complicated than it needs to be. I could see breaking up notes and references in a very large article or one with lots of notes, but an article like this really doesn't need sections since it isn't overflowing with citations. I would just have a "references" section at the end and not break it up at all. I would also use the correct citation template for every citation. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

General thoughts and suggestions[edit]

In looking at the state of the article, here are some general suggestions. First, what I would definitely remove ASAP:

  • Remove all inline external links, for instance, the links in the "Area Events" section and anything like it. WP:EL has more on the use of external links in articles. I removed the excess external links at the end per WP:EL and WP:USCITY.
  • Remove the gallery at the end. WP:IG has more on the use of galleries in articles. Instead, use the pictures in appropriate places throughout the article. Galleries are generally not appropriate on city articles and there is a link to the appropriate Commons category.
  • Remove the "famous visitors" section. It seems to be common in small town articles to think that extra information is needed since other sections may not be as long as in learger cities. Rather than tell us about the town, that info merely acts as fancruft. Pretty much every city in America has had famous people visit at some point, particularly the types of visitors Peabody has had (presidential candidates on trains). If the visit was of major significance, then it should be worked into the history section. If not, it is mere trivia and shouldn't be here.
  • Consolidate the education section by removing most, if not all, of the subheadings. Much of the information there really isn't needed and is more appropriate on the school district and high school articles. Highlighting a few academic accomplishments of the schools and/or district is appropriate, but including the athletic class and listing athletic championships really isn't.
  • Be careful of using boldface. The only terms that should be bold are the first instance of the city name and any other names it may have been known by (especially if there is a redirect to this article for that name). See MOS:BOLD for more info.
  • The "See also" section needs to have links to articles that are directly relevant to the city itself. It should not include articles that are already linked in the body of the article.
  • Remove all names in the notable people section that do not have an existing Wikipedia article about them. If an article is created for them add them back. Simply having a source for them does not mean they are notable even if the source establishes that they have been successful in their field. The notable people sections are more to connect the town with people who have articles on Wikipedia already. That's not to say those without articles aren't notable, but it's better to try and assert their notability in an article about them than trying to do it at this article. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your review and suggestions. Though this article is important to me, I got semi-burned out editing it, and instead was editing numerous other articles. Sometimes it's best to stay away from something for a while so you can come back with a fresh set of eyes. I plan to revisit this article in the near future. • SbmeirowTalk • 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

a confusing lack of a link to this page[edit]

The link on that page to this Wikipedia entry is a bit confusing. It seems to have a link to the Wikipedia main page and a link to EDIT the page, but not to just look at it. At least I couldn't find one at first glance. Just letting someone know. I'm just hoping someone here knows whose page I linked to above. I just wanted to remember where Marion County and Peabody are within Kansas. I was born and raised in Wichita and maybe went to Peabody once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That link was created by Facebook, so contact them. • SbmeirowTalk • 17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)