Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
I changed the articles rating to that of a Stub. It was rated a start. I ask, why? Honestly, it restates a NRHP nom form. It barely crosses the threashold of being a dictionary definition of the place. In fact, you could probably, go to that place, strike up a conversation with a local person and they would know as much if not more than what is in the current article. IMO, thats a stub. I checked oin the Wiki rankings of articles, turnes out, WP:ASSESS pretty much spells it out. WHY do I care. Using this as a metric, lets just go along and assume its a Start. Add a pic. Well now we have a pic, of the building, WOW! I am now bolt upright, jaw agape, THIS MUST BE A CLASS A or FA NOW. How about another ref? WOO HOO! Its a FA now. 3 refs...EGAD, the HAND OF GOD must be a new ranking. The entire paradigm of human knowledge has now been transformed as we now know it. BECAUSE, we have a pic, 3 sentences, and 2+ refs...UH...NOCoal town guy (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I returned the AFC rating to Start. I believe it is not proper to change that from the AFC member's evaluation. Whatever, otherwise. --doncram17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a rating by a named AFC reviewer. You should not change their rating. I don't care what rating for Wikiproject NRHP, am leaving that different. --doncram19:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
AFC reviewers aren't infallible. Just because one of them decided that three sentences, one of which is a direct quote, was somehow start-class despite assessment policy to the contrary doesn't mean that it has to stay that way forever. TheCatalyst3121:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Warning at all: Please for the love of DIETY do not edit war over the evaluation that a member of the AfC project gave to a page. If you disagree with the rating given on behalf of your project, feel free to change it, but each project has it's own rubric over what constitutes the various classes. @Coal town guy: Why did you not bring the issue to the reviewer who promoted the submission out of AfC space rather than have (what appears to be) a conniption fit/disruptive point making here on the talk page. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
