Talk:Tower Building of the Little Rock Arsenal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tower Building of the Little Rock Arsenal has been listed as one of the Warfare 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
January 18, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
April 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
May 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Arkansas (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Museums (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Historic sites (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

Upon its review on January 18, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

had a virtual or complete lack of reliable sources

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. According to WP:Verifiability, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

For the following reason: It looks like it has the potential to be a good article, but the citation problems need fixing. There is too much original research, and some of the sources need to be wikified.


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    original research in the lead, the "MacArthur Park Monuments" section, the last paragraph of the history section needs sourcing. If more sources could be found, that would be good.
This should be taken care of now. --The_stuart (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  4. 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):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall a good article. Sources need improvements, so I am putting it on hold. Also, the history section is kind of long, and should be divided up into smaller sub-sections if possible.

Yahel Guhan 08:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NRHP and NHL references for article[edit]

A very good reference to obtain would be the "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination" document and photo set, sometimes called the NRHP Registration document. This is available for free, upon request to the National Park Service. Send email request, giving name and REFNUM 70000127 of the site, to nr_reference at NPS.GOV. Provide your postal mail address. What you will get in a week or two is a photocopy of the history written about the site, written by an historian and editors, and photocopy of pictures as well.

Such documents are available on-line at the National Park Service for NRHPs that also are National Historic Landmarks. Since this site seems to be part of the Camden Expedition Sites NHL, i just added the document and photoset for that NHL as a reference to this article, as well. There may be info in this which could be used in the article, and/or this may be used as a reference to support statements already in the article. The NRHP document specifically about this site would be better however. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Camden Expedition Sites NHL photo set does have 6 pics about this site, although I am not sure if any of them would add to the article or whether they are public domain or not. But I also added a HABS external link to the article. There is one photo from 1934 I think, which could be used definitely. And perhaps one or more of the many measured drawings available would add to the article. Glad also to see user:Murderbike is kindly wikifying the references in the article. doncram (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold[edit]

Ihave had a look following your request, sorted out one layout bit and ask that you reference the following from the civil war section.: ... Government, and began a desperate but ultimately futile dispatch of letters and telegrams asking for reinforcements, although rumors were widely spread that they were already coming. (reference). Then I will have a look and go through the article. I have to say that one of the reasons I review GA's is to learn and this I found interesting and informative, sometimes a difficult combination. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 2nd check: images Capt. James Totten and The Tower Building, 1911 both have possible limiting copyright issues can you research and clarify. Thanks Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess I should have responded here rather than on my talk page. I haven't passed the article yet, because the last 2 paragraphs still need sources. Yahel Guhan 06:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
over to you if you are happy, not sure how you want to deal with the above points. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The next to last paragraph seems to be about the Arkansas Museum of Discovery, a museum whose precursor started separately from this site, moved into this site for 55 years and became this museum, which has since moved out of this site. For this article, about the site, I think the full history of the museum can be dropped. It should be moved to an article about the museum, if that exists. For this article, it could/should be mentioned that the museum, under its former name, was located here, and a wikilink to the existing or new article about the museum should be provided. That would get out of having to find references to document the history of the museum before and after it was located in this site, and in fact would probably finesse almost all need to provide references about it. Just the wikilink to it would be enough for me. I will not myself implement that kind of editing in this case, but I hope this is a helpful observation for someone else. doncram (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph includes wikilinked date 21 Jan 1999 but no source for the fact that a tornado damaged this site. Certainly it would be helpful to link to January 1999 tornado outbreak sequence#Little Rock area tornado which describes that tornado. That article does not describe damage to the Tower Building, but provides further references which may be checked to see if any of them describe the damage to the Tower Building. I found this article section about the tornado by searching for lists of tornadoes, as I had read somewhere that WikiProject Severe weather was doing extensive work along such lines. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I know it happened cause I remember it but I can't figure out where I got the info when I wrote that part of the article. --The_stuart (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove this portion until I can find proper citation.

On January 21, 1999, a tornado struck downtown Little Rock and inflicted significant damage to the arsenal building, destroying exterior porches and ripping off much of the roof, as well as destroying many very old trees in the park [1]. Due to the damages the Tower Building would close once again for the most extensive renovations it had ever had. It

--The_stuart (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph still is unreferenced. It needs sourcing.

In 1997 the Museum of Science and Natural History merged with the Little Rock Children's Museum, which had been located in Union Station, to for the Arkansas Museum of Discovery. The new museum was relocated to a historic building in the Little Rock River Market District. The MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History opened on May 19, 2001 in the Tower Building. The new museum's goal is to educate and inform visitors about the military history of Arkansas, preserve the Tower Building, honor servicemen and servicewomen of the United States, and commemorate the birthplace of Douglas MacArthur.

Yahel Guhan 07:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--The_stuart (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also please sort out the RED links theres quite a number. Realist2 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--The_stuart (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of "The" in article name[edit]

Is there a special reason why "The" is included at the start of the article name? My reading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) is that this should be avoided where possible.— Rod talk 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have mostly just been watching, but i chime in to agree with this point. The article could be renamed, and the first sentence can still start with the definite article "the", but now as "The Tower Building of the Little Rock Arsenal..." doncram (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I have a question about the sourcing. When a source is at the end of a paragraph, does that mean it is citing the whole paragraph or just the last sentence? Nikki311 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to take over the review of this article, so it is important that I am clear on the refs. Nikki311 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, each ref at the end of a paragraph represents a reference for the whole paragraph. --The_stuart (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Good. That's what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure. Add a ref to the end of the paragraph between the quotes in the Civil War section, just to make it clear that it is cited, as well. Since everything else is sited, I should be able to pass the article after that. Nikki311 21:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. --The_stuart (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, all the criteria was met except sourcing (per #On hold) and now that is met, too, so I'll pass the article. I'm sorry it took so long, the GA process isn't a perfect one. Nikki311 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Need to Split?[edit]

This article was formerly a GA, but probably would not meet that standard now. I think the origional article was specific to the Tower Building, but it has now been expanded to include the larger "Little Rock Arsenal" of which the Tower Building the the primarly surviving building. Should this article be split into two seperate articels, one on the Tower Building and one on the Arsenal? Aleutian06 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "FIRST TREE PLANTED AT ROTARY CENTENNIAL GROVE IN MACARTHUR PARK". Retrieved 2008-03-28.