User talk:WV Veritas

This is WV Veritas's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail (February 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mcmatter was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WV Veritas! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Draft:Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail

Hi, general question. I've drafted my first wikipedia entry for a building I wrote the nomination for the National Register of Historic Places for. I've received some feedback about needing more info on the wikipedia entry using secondary sources. My question is regarding what some term "self-plagiarizing". I wrote the original nomination and fully sourced it so is it acceptable to lift that text and use it on a wikipedia page and provide the same sources I used in the original document?

Self-plagiarizing wouldn't seem to be a concern since (1) I'm not doing this for college credit (recycling a paper in multiple courses) and (2) I'm not being paid by anyone so no one is losing exclusive use to what I've written... Rewriting all the information just to make it look like someone else wrote it doesn't seem like a good use of my time.

Thanks in advance for assistance. WV Veritas (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit tricky. Normally, registered buildings are automatically considered notable.

In writing the nomination, you did original research, pulling together a lot of documentation. Reproducing that original research as a Wikipedia article is problematic, since we don't allow original research. And while the nomination document can be considered a secondary source, you may not cite it, since you wrote it. Someone else would have to do that. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that feedback.

The wikipedia entries for the majority of the registered buildings in our county are "just" a sentence or two that essentially points (links) to the nomination.

The initial feedback I received was that did not provide enough references so I asked "help" for some clarification and the feedback was the entries were older, and their limited writeup/information would not be acceptable by Wikipedia today, As such I could look at the sources in the nomination to expand the Wikipedia writeup and cite them.

After I did that it led me to questioning what was the purpose in that since one could simply click on the link to the nomination and read the whole thing.

That led me to posing the question you answered about "self-plagiarizing. If registered buildings are automatically considered notable, was the first feedback saying the entry needed more references incorrect? It seems crazy to have someone else basically take what I've done, with the nomination reword it just enough so it isn't plagiarism and put it on Wikipedia, but since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research wouldn't they have to cite from the nomination I wrote?

Or can someone else draft the page for the Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail like the entry below for the T.H.B. Dawson House and see it accepted?

T. H. B. Dawson House

Really appreciate your time in providing the feedback and apologize if I haven't got a good grasp yet on what is required. WV Veritas (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard here is WP:GEOFEAT @Jmcgnh it only presumes national recognized structures as notable. This particular case seems to only be locally recognized or at most on the state level. So it has to meet the higher standard of WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This building is individually listed on the US National Register of Historic Places (and using data from Wikipedia of the 1.5 million listings on the US national register only 6% are there on their own (vs being part of an historic district)). And the standard for individual nominations in the US is much more rigorous than being a contributing building in a district.

This building was listed under - "Criterion A, "Event", the property must make a contribution to the major pattern of American history".

From the NPS webpage

The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/index.htm

I believe you are ascribing a very high bar for this building that the majority of US national register listings in Wikipedia would never pass. The criteria you are using would likely mean only National Historic Landmarks (sites deemed to be of exceptional national significance) would be worthy of an individual article on Wikipedia.

The building we are discussing for an individual article on Wikipedia was assigned status (recognized) at the national level and has verifiable information beyond just simple statistics... WV Veritas (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the nomination document, but it only shows the state-level endorsement. Has there been progress towards being accepted to the national registry? Searching the registry database didn't get me any useful hits.

"Being worthy" is loaded language. The inclusion criteria do set a fairly high bar, but a big part of that is for there to be suitable sources on which to base an article. If all we have is the nomination document and the sources identified there, you get a very short article, since it's not appropriate to simply reproduce the nomination document as the article content. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look.

It was approved by the NPS and entered into the National Register of Historic Places on 2 November 2023. No. 100009542

It does not appear the National Archives database containing the individual nominations is current (the nomination for this building, as well as a nomination for the State Park listed in 2019 are not "linked" and accessible from the NPS website).

I understand what you are saying about very short articles, but so many buildings on the National Register have not been written about (other than nominations using original research) so there isn't a lot out there. Is the thought these buildings should be removed from Wikipedia because there isn't more written about them to expand the articles?

Just looking at the Wikipedia articles for the individual buildings listed in our county most have only 2 or maybe three sources listed, and doubtful there would be any more sources out there on them should someone go digging... And those that have more sources listed it is not because of their historical significance, but rather because what is happening in and around them present day (such as controversies regarding the owners).

Again thanks for taking a look and sharing your expertise and perspective WV Veritas (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail. Thanks! McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is trying too hard to emphasize the significance of this building and its status as "extra historic" because it's listed as a single building and not part of something larger. The NHRP status is sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion; we don't need to gild the lily. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification

I've found myself running in circles attempting to address each reviewer's comments that often times are not in agreement.

I've "cleaned up" the draft (basically to what I originally wrote) and in doing so took out the "extra historic". If the NHRP status is sufficient what more is required than referencing the nomination? So many buildings on the national register have only been written about via the nomination, and in doing so most independent reliable published sources (newspaper articles, meeting minutes, etc) have been used leaving nothing left to reference for an article on Wikipedia...

I'm a novice so I hope this reply finds you in the manner in which you prefer.

({{Ping|WikiDan61}}) WV Veritas (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail has been accepted

Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you so much for the assistance in seeing this through. I really appreciate your clarity and willingness to stay engaged. WV Veritas (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]