Jump to content

Talk:Vance Monument

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 03:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
Source: Governor is Zebulon Vance, Northern donor is George Willis Pack
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Varroa destructor

    • Improved to Good Article status (Vance Monument) and expanded fivefold (George Willis Pack) by Rublamb (talk). Self-nominated at 00:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vance Monument; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

    —and a reminder that all parts of the hook fact should appear in the nominated article, not just Pack's. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hameltion: I like the change. Is it okay that the article's name is not in the hook? Rublamb (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rublamb: Yes, there's lots of precedent for it. I'll still suggest adding to the article some info about Pack's views and his friendship with Vance which would explain the hook more—this ref provides some in This tolerant view was at the center of his character, as it was in the character of another important western North Carolinian, his friend, Zebulon Vance... and the rest of that paragraph. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hameltion: I'd rather not add obituary fluff to a GA article; we removed similar stuff about Vance and continue to fight additions of non-neutral info. Even reports of Pack's "friendship" with Vance are suspect given that Pack lived in Cleveland/Asheville and Vance lived in Washington, D.C. Instead, I can draft a new hook about the Masonic ceremony and/or the discovery of the box they buried at the base of the monument OR this can be a two-article nomination as I just made a fivefold expansion of George Willis Pack yesterday. The dual nomination would let your version of the hook remain but would make more work for you. I am good either way. Just let me know your preference. And thanks for catching that I had overreached the topic of this article in my hook. Rublamb (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rublamb: A dual nomination would definitely resolve the issues. Reviews of both to come, then. For the record, I wouldn't consider any aspect of the reason for the monument being built "fluff" but I guess there's no need to add that detail if the other article is added to this nom. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hameltion: I cannot figure out how to add the Pack article to the nomination without editing above the top line. Is that something you have to do? Details are: George Willis Pack, 5x expanded 11/1/2023. It went from 1321 to 7080 characters. The sources previously provided (Wykle and NCpedia) are used in both articles. Thanks, Rublamb (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rublamb: I got the extra nom handled. Only technical thing left for you is another QPQ when you get a chance. Reviews:
    Vance Monument is a recent GA, though I was able to do a lot of copyediting. And sorry to say there are neutrality/sourcing issues, namely in the form of length/focus in the early history sections. Many of the 1890s newspapers are essentially primary sources, not analyses—WP:PRIMARY says to be cautious about basing large passages on them. I ask that you remove lists of non-notable names and things like The first shovelful of dirt was thrown by John Y. Jordan, with the second by John O'Donnell and However, Judge Armfeld declined the invitation to give the address because of his poor health—these and other details which do not seem significant. I've removed there may have been hard feelings in Western North Carolina, which doesn't appear to be verified by source. The Popular culture section also has dubious coherence. And in the lede, The project's donors reflected Vance's influence and reach as both a politician and popular speaker of the era does not seem to be verified in the body. (Good work in the construction stories and 21st-century sections!)
    George Willis Pack is good, largely because it relies on newer and more secondary sources. Recently 5x expanded (1577 → 8163 bytes by DYKcheck). Positive but neutral, perhaps wordy but well-sourced, earwig finds mostly stock phrases. Personal life could be split into multiple sections.
    If you want to do revision, I expect a fair bit of trimming from Vance Monument. Ping me when you're ready for another look. And I'll mention on second thought that it doesn't totally make sense to keep the hook fact split across two articles; it wrongly looks like WP:OR when the idea could be citing a source (ref) that explicitly pairs the two. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hameltion:, WP:PRIMARY defines mainstream newspapers as reliable sources, not primary sources. It is one of the main differences between academic research and Wikipedia guidelines. I agreed I could improve the monument article and do appreciate your copy edits. Regardless, it is probably not reasonable to expect a major rewrite of a new GA article for a DYK; that will get covered if this moves on to FA. But you did make me realize something. I believe everything in the current version of the hook is included in the Pack article and covered by Helen Wykles's article. What about dropping the monument article entirely? It wasn't where I thought this was going, but it does seem the quickest and easiest solution. Rublamb (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rublamb: Didn't mean to suggest they're not reliable, just that they're not secondary and to use them in moderation. But OK, switching the articles makes sense. For DYK promoters' sake, maybe leave a comment here withdrawing this nomination and open a new template for Pack—and add any new hook ideas there if you have any. I can approve there. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am officially withdrawing the DYK nomination for Vance Monument and have created a new animation under George Willis Pack. Please update its status to Withdrawm. Rublamb (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Image placement

    [edit]

    @Rublamb: I hope you don't mind, but I've moved the images further down in the article, in what I consider more appropriate sections. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That is fine. You know I always appreciate your work. Rublamb (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vance_Monument&oldid=1204231242"