Misplaced Pages

User:Orlady/List: Difference between revisions

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.
< User:Orlady Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:25, 16 July 2011 editDoncram (talk | contribs)203,830 edits →Additional entries: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:14, 19 May 2024 edit undoChoess (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators78,762 edits note a few more improvements over the years 
(77 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{noindex}}
This list in Orlady's userspace is a list of articles edited by me, doncram, which she has identified in order to criticize them. Elkman, Station1, Ntsimp, Polaron, and Orlady have seen fit to revise some of these articles and mark some of them "done" here. I disagree in general with some of the criticism of these articles which has been expressed elsewhere, but I also agree that most of these articles, like most articles in Misplaced Pages, can indeed be improved. Some of the apparent focus has been upon removing statements that I believed to be accurate, but which were deliberately ambiguous, where more precise statements of fact were not possible to write. I definitely agree that replacing an ambiguous statement with a sourced statement of fact is an improvement. IMO, simply removing a sourced ambiguous statement is not necessarily an improvement. IMO, changing an ambiguous statement to a more confident but possibly false statement is not a help. If no one objects strenuously, i will give some specific comments about the articles as created or edited by me, and about subsequent changes to them. Hopefully this will help improve understanding of what my intentions were and will help improve the articles. --]]] 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Discussion of the purpose of this list}}
This list in Orlady's userspace is a list of articles edited by me, doncram, which she has identified in order to criticize them. Elkman, Station1, Ntsimp, Polaron, and Orlady have seen fit to revise some of these articles and mark some of them "done" here. I disagree in general with some of the criticism of these articles which has been expressed elsewhere, but I also agree that most of these articles, like most articles in Misplaced Pages, can indeed be improved. Some of the apparent focus has been upon removing statements that I believed to be accurate, but which were deliberately ambiguous, where more precise statements of fact were not possible to write. I definitely agree that replacing an ambiguous statement with a sourced statement of fact is an improvement. IMO, simply removing a sourced ambiguous statement is not necessarily an improvement. IMO, changing an ambiguous statement to a more confident but possibly false statement is not a help. If no one objects strenuously, i will give some specific comments about the articles as created or edited by me, and about subsequent changes to them. Hopefully this will help improve understanding of what my intentions were and will help improve the articles. --]]] 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


:So nice to see you back at Misplaced Pages, Doncram. :So nice to see you back at Misplaced Pages, Doncram.
Line 13: Line 15:
::I disagree with Orlady's characterization of consensus in those previous discussions. ::I disagree with Orlady's characterization of consensus in those previous discussions.


::I think i added my comments accidentally to a previous version of this page which had the effect of deleting some others' comments. Sorry about that; thanks for adding those other comments back. I'll continue commenting on some others. --]]] 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ::I think i added my comments accidentally to a previous version of this page which had the effect of deleting some others' comments. Sorry about that; thanks for adding those other comments back. I'll continue commenting on some others. --]]] 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

:::That is not '''my''' characterization of consensus. I quoted the '''closing administrator''' who reviewed and summarized the discussion. 'Nuf said. --] (]) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


==Original set (started April 27, 2011)== ==Original set (started April 27, 2011)==
*] {{done}} ] (]) 14:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 14:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Doncram's comments}}
:: was fine as a stub, correctly stating that it "is or was a ]" and linking it to that Rosenwald School article, to a new that i then created. The subsequent edits improved the article and established that the past tense usage was the more correct one. Original article was fine; improvements are fine too IMO. --]]] 15:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*] {{done}} Elkman 27 April and ] (]) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC) (btw, What does BOC mean?) *] {{done}} Elkman 27 April and ] (]) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC) (btw, What does BOC mean?)
{{collapse top|title=Doncram's comments}}
:: from the version i started did not particularly improve the article, IMO. One editor removed mention that the site was Address Restricted, which I restored but then reverted because I found Elkman's generator (based on NRIS) did not document Address Restriction. However, just now checking my /draft version based on NRIS, i verify that the site is address restricted, and hence I re-added that to the article. Seems to me that article is okay, still not great because no one has obtained more specific information. --]]] 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*] {{done}} --] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} --] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Doncram's comments}}
*]
:: was fine as a stub, IMO, but Elkman's edit, adding more information from the linked document, definitely improved the article. I also just restored to the infobox the 2 dates of significance that had been in the "built=" field, using the now-available means to add "NRIS dates of significance: c.1840, c.1900", per . --]]] 16:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
*]
{{collapse bottom}}
*] {{done}} several people (not me) contributed to cleaning this one up -- ] (]) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} several people (not me) contributed to cleaning this one up -- ] (]) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Doncram's comments}}
*] {{done}} ] (]) 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
::The changes after i edited it, in , including changes within a commented out passage that have no effect on appearance of article, seem pretty insignificant to me. The changes amount to very minor formatting and changing one allcaps word to lowercase, which is fine but no big deal. was fine, IMO. It included a parenthetical question mark (?) about 1991 being the probable date of NRHP listing of the property, which the subsequent edits removed. 1991 is a pretty good guess by me of the date of NRHP listing, based on listings of other nearby properties, but the guesswork was properly identified by the question mark. It seems to me the article is worsened by the subsequent edit removing that without a source. --]]] 15:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*] {{done}} ] (]) 18:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Doncram's comments}}
::Wording edits and addition of some information from the sources I had already linked, done by Station1, improved the article. Such further development is fine and good, thanks. --]]
] 15:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*] {{done}} ] (]) 19:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 19:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Doncram's comments}}
::Ntsimp's edit worked from the information i had provided in the article, and I will note preserved use of the quotation i had selected from the nom document. Sure, many articles in wikipedia, including many of these, can be improved by some editing and further development from the sources provided by a creating author. I don't see any big problem here. --]]] 15:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*] *]
*] {{done}} ] *] {{done}} ]
*] {{done}} ] (]) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
*] *] {{done}} Was cleaned up by ]. ] (]) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
*] *] {{done}} Was copy-edited after I put the copyedit template on it, but now it's at AFD. ] (]) 19:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
* ] * ]
*] *]
*] {{done}} ] (]) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
*] {{done}} ] (]) 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
*] {{done}} Was cleaned up by ]. ] (]) 16:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
*]
*] {{done}} ] (]) 04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC) {{not done}} Ntsimp's changes were largely undone by Doncram. --] (]) 02:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*] *] {{done}} Was cleaned up by ]. --] (]) 02:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*] {{done}} ] (]) 00:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 00:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
*] {{done}} ] (]) 07:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 07:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
*] {{done}} ] (]) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
::I undid Station1's edit which oddly moved the NRHP document source to a "Further Reading" section, and continued developing the article back then. Also i restored ] disambiguation which Station1 had then redirected. Orlady hurt the article, IMO, by rewording it to focus upon who used a quoted term and then adding a "by whom" tag. Orlady coulda jolly well have just looked at the source at the end of the paragraph and added the authors' names from the source at the end of the paragraph. I just now restored my version from before her edit, so as not to dwell upon whose words exactly they were. I think the article is fine again now. There would be other ways to write the article, but IMO there was no problem here. --]]] 16:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
:::This no longer qualifies as "done." I restored the "by whom" inline template because of the unattributed quotations. See ] for further discussion on the fact that quotations and opinions need to be attributed to somebody in the text of the article. --] (]) 18:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Among other edits, Orlady has repeatedly removed useful mention, now presented as an external link, of additional records about the site being available in a university archive. Terming this mention "trivia" does not convince me. If not in the wikipedia article on a historic site, then where else is it appropriate to mention where additional information is available. --]]] 15:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

*] {{done}} --] *] {{done}} --]
*] {{done}} ] and ] (]) 00:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] and ] (]) 00:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
*] *] {{done}} - ] (]) 20:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Doncram's comments}}
::I see no problem with this article. --]]] 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*] {{done}} - already redirected. *] {{done}} - already redirected.
{{collapse top|title=Doncram's comments}}
::If this is supposed to be evidence of something nefarious about me, i don't get it. In , with edit summary "start stub article, perhaps to be redirected as there should be one about this co", i started a temporary stub, with explicit invitation that it should be redirected if an appropriate target could be found. The stub is an appropriate complement to ], a needed disambiguation page. The fact that the stub has since been redirected is fine, is what i sought. --]]] 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*] *]
*] {{done}} Was cleaned up by ]. ] (]) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
*]
*] {{done}} ] *] {{done}} ]
*] {{done}} ] *] {{done}} ]
*] *] {{done}} ]
*] *]
*] *]
*] {{done}} *] {{done}}
*] *<s>]</s> duplicate (handled below)
*] {{done}} by Elkman --] (]) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
*]
*] {{done}} Was cleaned up by ]. ] (]) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
*]
*] {{done}} ] (]) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
*] {{done}} Was cleaned up by ]. ] (]) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
*]
*] {{done}} Was cleaned up by ]. ] (]) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
*]
*] *]
*] {{done}} ] (]) 19:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC) *] {{done}} ] (]) 19:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 62: Line 94:


==Additional entries== ==Additional entries==
* ] - Article looks fine. I think Orlady identified it here as a problem because it includes accurate statement that it "was built, or had other significant date, in 1908", and she, like me too, would prefer a more precise statement. There is decent development already from an MRA document; the article could be improved if someone obtained the individual NRHP nomination form. Seems to me like an error to have identified this as a problem in any way. --]]] 15:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC) * ] - I commented out the inappropriate use of a quotation, but other problems remain. --] (]) 03:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=Doncram's comments, not aimed at resolving the problem}}
:Article looks fine. I think Orlady identified it here as a problem because it includes accurate statement that it "was built, or had other significant date, in 1908", and she, like me too, would prefer a more precise statement. There is decent development already from an MRA document; the article could be improved if someone obtained the individual NRHP nomination form. Seems to me like an error to have identified this as a problem in any way. --]]] 15:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}} {{done}} by ] --] (]) 02:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*] *]
*] - Some of the problems have been cleaned up, but wording is still not very encyclopedic. --] (]) 02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
*]
* ] - I tried to fix one of the issues with this one once, but I was reverted.-Orlady. Now {{done}} ] (]) 08:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC) * ] - I tried to fix one of the issues with this one once, but I was reverted.-Orlady. Now {{done}} ] (]) 08:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
* ] {{done}} ] (]) 07:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC) * ] {{done}} ] (]) 07:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Line 72: Line 107:
==New set (includes some duplicates)== ==New set (includes some duplicates)==
Based on a search for "has other significance," 7 June 2011: Based on a search for "has other significance," 7 June 2011:
*] *]
::For context about this article, see ]. This article was created as a demonstration to local editors who were already creating articles, this specific article was a demo showing what could be done easily using the NRIS info, and hopefully would have more added to it by them. They have not. But the article is fully sourced and is accurate and has even been locally reviewed. I don't see a problem here. --]]] 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
*]
:::Same problems as ''extensively'' discussed at AN and elsewhere. Now {{done}} - ] (]) 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
*]
*] - was built or has other significance
*]
*] {{done}} - ] (]) 20:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
*] {{done}} - ] (]) 20:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
*<s>]</s> handled above *<s>]</s> handled above
*] {{done}} - ] (]) 20:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
*]
*] {{done}} - ] (]) 20:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (''Note'': It's possible these 3 Boyd article should be merged, but it requires some research)
*]
*] *<s>]</s> handled above
*] *] - was built or has other significance
*] - was built or has other significance; excessive direct quotation has been commented out. Fixed the "was build or" language. --] (]) 23:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
*]
*] *] - needs sourcing and quotation attribution
*] {{done}} resolved by Lvklock and Doncram on 7 July 2012 --] (]) 15:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
*]
*] *] {{done}} - ] (]) 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
*] *]
*] *]
Line 93: Line 130:
*] *]
*] *]
*] *] {{done}} although it could still use a little polish. ] (]) 13:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
*] *]
*] *]
*] *<s>]</s> (duplicate)
*] partially {{done}}, I couldn't figure out what the 1912 date was for.--] 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC) *] partially {{done}}, I couldn't figure out what the 1912 date was for.--] 18:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*] *] - {{done}} --] (]) 15:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
*] *]
*] *]
Line 104: Line 141:
*] *]
*] *]
*] <s>*]</s> (duplicate)
*] *]
*] *]
Line 121: Line 158:
*] *]
*] *]
*] *<s>]</s> (duplicate)
*] *]
*] *]
Line 128: Line 165:
*] *]
*] *]
*] *<s>]</s> (duplicate) - "is or was a property"; "was built or has other significance"; etc.
*] *<s>]</s> (duplicate)
*] *<s>]</s> (duplicate)
*] *]
*] *] {{done}} - ] (]) 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*] *<s>]</s> (duplicate)
*] {{done}} mostly thanks to Elkman. --] (]) 19:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
*]
*] Orlady edited the article to remove an incomplete date from a source (I had put in the authors' names but omitted to complete out the date of preparation), and to move one sentence, in . I don't think that particularly helped. Why not just enter the date, from the linked source document? I have added the date, and otherwise edited the article slightly to remove some ambiguity. IMO, the article was fine before being identified here as some kind of problem, and it is now slightly improved. --]]] 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) *] Orlady edited the article to remove an incomplete date from a source (I had put in the authors' names but omitted to complete out the date of preparation), and to move one sentence, in . I don't think that particularly helped. Why not just enter the date, from the linked source document? I have added the date, and otherwise edited the article slightly to remove some ambiguity. IMO, the article was fine before being identified here as some kind of problem, and it is now slightly improved. --]]] 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
*] {{done}} - Mostly fixed by Elkman in June 2011. --] (]) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
*]
*] *]
*] *]
Line 152: Line 189:
*] *]
*] *]
*] *<s>]</s> duplicate
*] *]
*] *]
Line 159: Line 196:
*] *]
*] *]
*] *] {{done}} by TheCatalyst31 --] (]) 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
*] *]
*] - revised in to remove "and/or", so statement is now that bridge was designed and built by the named firm. This is not specifically supported by any reference. If you all prefer confident statements of possibly false information, then you should cross this off your list. I prefer the accurate "and/or" wording until specific sourcing is found for a more precise statement. --]]] 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) *] - revised in to remove "and/or", so statement is now that bridge was designed and built by the named firm. This is not specifically supported by any reference. If you all prefer confident statements of possibly false information, then you should cross this off your list. I prefer the accurate "and/or" wording until specific sourcing is found for a more precise statement. --]]] 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
*] *]
*] *]
*] - <s>I'd like to userfy this one. I can't see anything here that's worth keeping in article space. --] (]) 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)</s> Converted to redirect, pointing to ], which had extensive info about this area as a key part of the history of the small town. --] (]) 20:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC) *] - <s>I'd like to userfy this one. I can't see anything here that's worth keeping in article space. --] (]) 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)</s> {{done}} Converted to redirect, pointing to ], which had extensive info about this area as a key part of the history of the small town. --] (]) 20:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*] *]
*] *]
*] *] {{done}} by Station1, back in 2011. --] (]) 05:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
*] - {{done}} Kansas sure makes it easy with the nomination forms ] (]) 18:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
*]
*] - {{done}} - Interesting building. I looked at this based on Orlady's comment in the NRHP talk page. ] (]) 20:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
*]


==Excessive use of quotations== ==Excessive use of quotations==
*] - I think the use of quotation was fine, but have edited it down anyhow. --]]] 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) {{done}} (checkmark annotation added ] (]) 02:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)) ::::I've "commented out" the problematic quotations in all articles in this group that are not checked off as done. That eliminated the immediate issues related to ] (and related principles). The content that was formerly provided in the form of verbatim quotations still could be restored to the articles -- if it is rendered in the contributor's own words. --] (]) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC) <!-- ] (added to this list recently) is no longer fixed because Doncram reverted me. --] (]) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC) -->
*] - I think the use of quotation was fine, but have edited it down anyhow. --]]] 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) {{done}} (checkmark annotation added ] (]) 02:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
*] *]
*] *]
*]
{{collapse top|Discussion}}
::Orlady just commented out useful quotation and I just . The quotation is appropriate IMO as it provides explanation from the NRHP nom of why the place is deemed significant, and it is well-written and compact and good to quote and credit, as I did. I don't agree with Orlady's judgment, and other(s) have agreed with me that quoting from NRHP docs as to reason for NRHP listing is often quite appropriate. I think it is good, here. --]]] 20:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I strongly disagree. Approximately half of the article text is a direct quotation, a large chunk that's not quotation is prose description of the database entry (e.g., "When listed the property included one contributing building and one non-contributing building on an area of 1 acre (0.40 ha)"), and the quotation contains information that could easily be converted into your own words -- only part of it consists of the kind of content that needs to be conveyed in the form of a quotation. Since you apparently don't care to take the time to address these concerns now, but you don't want the quotation "hidden", would you prefer to have this article moved to your user space so you can work on it at your leisure? --] (]) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Once again, I have commented out the quotation. --] (]) 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
*] *]
*]
*] - The article, in includes a quotation, which I think is fine. The article could be edited differently, but I see no problem with it as it is. --]]] 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I continue to see serious problems with that quotation. It's a 5-sentence quotation that makes up roughly half of the article. The quotation is a collection of factual statements; it does not convey someone's opinion or other "flavor" that would possibly justify use of a quotation. --] (]) 02:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
::The article, in includes a quotation, which I think is fine. The article could be edited differently, but I see no problem with it as it is. --]]] 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I continue to see serious problems with that quotation. It's a 5-sentence quotation that makes up roughly half of the article. The quotation is a collection of factual statements; it does not convey someone's opinion or other "flavor" that would possibly justify use of a quotation. --] (]) 02:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*] *<s>]</s> duplicate
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*] - Fixed the significant dates. Long quotation is still hidden. ] (]) 18:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
*]
*] *]
*] *]
Line 192: Line 238:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]

==Premature creations, July 2011==
*]

==Added to this list on or after July 30, 2011==
*]
*] - "may be included in a boundary increase"?
*]
*]

Latest revision as of 16:14, 19 May 2024

Discussion of the purpose of this list

This list in Orlady's userspace is a list of articles edited by me, doncram, which she has identified in order to criticize them. Elkman, Station1, Ntsimp, Polaron, and Orlady have seen fit to revise some of these articles and mark some of them "done" here. I disagree in general with some of the criticism of these articles which has been expressed elsewhere, but I also agree that most of these articles, like most articles in Misplaced Pages, can indeed be improved. Some of the apparent focus has been upon removing statements that I believed to be accurate, but which were deliberately ambiguous, where more precise statements of fact were not possible to write. I definitely agree that replacing an ambiguous statement with a sourced statement of fact is an improvement. IMO, simply removing a sourced ambiguous statement is not necessarily an improvement. IMO, changing an ambiguous statement to a more confident but possibly false statement is not a help. If no one objects strenuously, i will give some specific comments about the articles as created or edited by me, and about subsequent changes to them. Hopefully this will help improve understanding of what my intentions were and will help improve the articles. --doncram 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So nice to see you back at Misplaced Pages, Doncram.
This list was started during a WP:AN discussion in April 2011 and expanded during a later WP:AN discussion. The articles listed here are examples of issues addressed in those discussions. The closing administrator's summary of the conclusions of that second discussion states, in part:
  • There is a consensus that Doncram's creation of the stubs at issue, and similar stubs, is disruptive (#Consensus). These creations have been characterized as error-prone, vague, and generally impart little usable information.
  • There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates WP:NFC (#Another question regarding consensus on article quality).
  • Although the question is slightly closer, due to the relative fewer number of participants, there is a consensus for Orlady's proposed resolution (#Where do we go from here? (Proposed resolution)), which I will quote below:

Users encountering Doncram-created content that is defined in this discussion as unacceptable may delete that content from the article or move it to the talk page for discussion. If simple excision of the problematic content cannot be done in a fashion that results in a coherent article or stub, then the entire article may be moved to the user's space. Content should not be restored to article space until the issues are resolved. Content removal consistent with this directive will not be considered to be edit warring.

Several users have treated this list as a "to do" list of problem articles needing to be fixed. Please do not delete the annotations that have been made here after the problems were fixed. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Orlady's characterization of consensus in those previous discussions.
I think i added my comments accidentally to a previous version of this page which had the effect of deleting some others' comments. Sorry about that; thanks for adding those other comments back. I'll continue commenting on some others. --doncram 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
That is not my characterization of consensus. I quoted the closing administrator who reviewed and summarized the discussion. 'Nuf said. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Original set (started April 27, 2011)

Doncram's comments
This stub from June 2009 by me was fine as a stub, correctly stating that it "is or was a Rosenwald School" and linking it to that Rosenwald School article, to which i added a link to a new Rosenwald School disambiguation page that i then created. The subsequent edits improved the article and established that the past tense usage was the more correct one. Original article was fine; improvements are fine too IMO. --doncram 15:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • BOC Site  Done Elkman 27 April and Station1 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC) (btw, What does BOC mean?)
Doncram's comments
Subsequent changes from the version i started did not particularly improve the article, IMO. One editor removed mention that the site was Address Restricted, which I restored but then reverted because I found Elkman's generator (based on NRIS) did not document Address Restriction. However, just now checking my /draft version based on NRIS, i verify that the site is address restricted, and hence I re-added that to the article. Seems to me that article is okay, still not great because no one has obtained more specific information. --doncram 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Doncram's comments
The version i created was fine as a stub, IMO, but Elkman's edit, adding more information from the linked document, definitely improved the article. I also just restored to the infobox the 2 dates of significance that had been in the "built=" field, using the now-available means to add "NRIS dates of significance: c.1840, c.1900", per "Sandboxed version" discussion at template talk Infobox NRHP. --doncram 16:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Doncram's comments
The changes after i edited it, in this diff, including changes within a commented out passage that have no effect on appearance of article, seem pretty insignificant to me. The changes amount to very minor formatting and changing one allcaps word to lowercase, which is fine but no big deal. This version by me was fine, IMO. It included a parenthetical question mark (?) about 1991 being the probable date of NRHP listing of the property, which the subsequent edits removed. 1991 is a pretty good guess by me of the date of NRHP listing, based on listings of other nearby properties, but the guesswork was properly identified by the question mark. It seems to me the article is worsened by the subsequent edit removing that without a source. --doncram 15:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Doncram's comments
Wording edits and addition of some information from the sources I had already linked, done by Station1, improved the article. Such further development is fine and good, thanks. --doncr

am 15:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram's comments
Ntsimp's edit worked from the information i had provided in the article, and I will note preserved use of the quotation i had selected from the nom document. Sure, many articles in wikipedia, including many of these, can be improved by some editing and further development from the sources provided by a creating author. I don't see any big problem here. --doncram 15:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I undid Station1's edit which oddly moved the NRHP document source to a "Further Reading" section, and continued developing the article back then. Also i restored Lyons Garage disambiguation which Station1 had then redirected. Orlady in this diff hurt the article, IMO, by rewording it to focus upon who used a quoted term and then adding a "by whom" tag. Orlady coulda jolly well have just looked at the source at the end of the paragraph and added the authors' names from the source at the end of the paragraph. I just now restored my version from before her edit, so as not to dwell upon whose words exactly they were. I think the article is fine again now. There would be other ways to write the article, but IMO there was no problem here. --doncram 16:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This no longer qualifies as "done." I restored the "by whom" inline template because of the unattributed quotations. See WP:INTEXT for further discussion on the fact that quotations and opinions need to be attributed to somebody in the text of the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Among other edits, Orlady has repeatedly removed useful mention, now presented as an external link, of additional records about the site being available in a university archive. Terming this mention "trivia" does not convince me. If not in the wikipedia article on a historic site, then where else is it appropriate to mention where additional information is available. --doncram 15:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Doncram's comments
I see no problem with this article. --doncram 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Doncram's comments
If this is supposed to be evidence of something nefarious about me, i don't get it. In this edit, with edit summary "start stub article, perhaps to be redirected as there should be one about this co", i started a temporary stub, with explicit invitation that it should be redirected if an appropriate target could be found. The stub is an appropriate complement to Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Building (disambiguation), a needed disambiguation page. The fact that the stub has since been redirected is fine, is what i sought. --doncram 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional entries

Doncram's comments, not aimed at resolving the problem
Article looks fine. I think Orlady identified it here as a problem because it includes accurate statement that it "was built, or had other significant date, in 1908", and she, like me too, would prefer a more precise statement. There is decent development already from an MRA document; the article could be improved if someone obtained the individual NRHP nomination form. Seems to me like an error to have identified this as a problem in any way. --doncram 15:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done by User:TheCatalyst31 --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

New set (includes some duplicates)

Based on a search for "has other significance," 7 June 2011:

For context about this article, see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Scott County, Iowa#Development. This article was created as a demonstration to local editors who were already creating articles, this specific article was a demo showing what could be done easily using the NRIS info, and hopefully would have more added to it by them. They have not. But the article is fully sourced and is accurate and has even been locally reviewed. I don't see a problem here. --doncram 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Same problems as extensively discussed at AN and elsewhere. Now  Done - Station1 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

*James Hazelton House (duplicate)

Another new set

These are based on a search for "designed and/or" on June 13, 2011. I tried to avoid duplications and I did not include some articles that appeared otherwise to be in reasonably good shape.

Excessive use of quotations

I've "commented out" the problematic quotations in all articles in this group that are not checked off as done. That eliminated the immediate issues related to WP:Copyvio (and related principles). The content that was formerly provided in the form of verbatim quotations still could be restored to the articles -- if it is rendered in the contributor's own words. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
Orlady just commented out useful quotation and I just restored it, along with other small edits. The quotation is appropriate IMO as it provides explanation from the NRHP nom of why the place is deemed significant, and it is well-written and compact and good to quote and credit, as I did. I don't agree with Orlady's judgment, and other(s) have agreed with me that quoting from NRHP docs as to reason for NRHP listing is often quite appropriate. I think it is good, here. --doncram 20:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Approximately half of the article text is a direct quotation, a large chunk that's not quotation is prose description of the database entry (e.g., "When listed the property included one contributing building and one non-contributing building on an area of 1 acre (0.40 ha)"), and the quotation contains information that could easily be converted into your own words -- only part of it consists of the kind of content that needs to be conveyed in the form of a quotation. Since you apparently don't care to take the time to address these concerns now, but you don't want the quotation "hidden", would you prefer to have this article moved to your user space so you can work on it at your leisure? --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I have commented out the quotation. --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The article, in this version as edited by me includes a quotation, which I think is fine. The article could be edited differently, but I see no problem with it as it is. --doncram 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I continue to see serious problems with that quotation. It's a 5-sentence quotation that makes up roughly half of the article. The quotation is a collection of factual statements; it does not convey someone's opinion or other "flavor" that would possibly justify use of a quotation. --Orlady (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Premature creations, July 2011

Added to this list on or after July 30, 2011