Template:Did you know nominations/Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District
[edit]
- ... that Hyde Park-Kenwood Historic District (map pictured) contains the Kenwood, Chicago home of President of the United States Barack Obama?
Created/expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nom at 14:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- 2nd credit against Template:Did you know nominations/List of most expensive sculptures (5 article review)
Date is good, length is 1600 chars., give or take. Sourcing is a bit of an issue. The hook fact is sourced to a court document. Is this the only source available for the president's street address? All we need is something that says he lives in that neighbourhood.
- I had searched pretty extensively for WP:RS with the president's address. His home residence was in the news quite a bit when he ran for election due to the Tony Rezko scandal. However, all the newspaper articles assume everyone knows where the house is. Almost none of them give the address. There are articles documenting his next-door-neighbors address. I.e., a google search for "Barack Obama Greenwood site:chicagotribune.com" will only get you to his neighbors home. However, I just did a "Barack Obama Greenwood site:suntimes.com" search and found a story. I will swap out the ref.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I added both refs in place of the previously included ref.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Better, thanks. The Interior (Talk) 19:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I added both refs in place of the previously included ref.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I had searched pretty extensively for WP:RS with the president's address. His home residence was in the news quite a bit when he ran for election due to the Tony Rezko scandal. However, all the newspaper articles assume everyone knows where the house is. Almost none of them give the address. There are articles documenting his next-door-neighbors address. I.e., a google search for "Barack Obama Greenwood site:chicagotribune.com" will only get you to his neighbors home. However, I just did a "Barack Obama Greenwood site:suntimes.com" search and found a story. I will swap out the ref.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Second, the National Register of Historic Places source's link leads to a generic introduction page. The citation itself has no identifiers or catalog information. This needs more info to be considered a valid source.
- This needs to be addressed, this is the source on which the article depends. The Interior (Talk) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The article could also use a short paragraph with more historical info, like the age of the buildings, what style predominates, etc. I see you have some of that in the infobox, but it would be nice to have it in prose (and to balance out the listy second paragraph.) The bottom infobox has some info that would be better off in prose form, too. Other than that, good work. The Interior (Talk) 08:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The infobox content comes from an unsourced database. Adding to prose is not appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused by this statement: if the source isn't good enough for prose, it isn't good enough for an infobox either, no? You have used this source in the first paragraph, also. The Interior (Talk) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I mean stuff like "Late 19th And 20th Century Revivals, Prairie School, Late Victorian" comes from whatever database this tool searches. Elkman (talk · contribs) may know more about this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't chime in right away. The architectural style codes in the database are the same as those coded on the National Register nomination form or submission. With the more recent nominations, the architectural styles are listed right on the form, with checkboxes. I'm not sure where the architectural styles for this district were listed or where they came from, since I haven't read this nomination in any specific detail. In any case, is the article at great risk of being substantially wrong if the architectural styles aren't cited to a specific document? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for shedding some light. So I'm guessing that for districts/neighbourhoods there aren't any of these nice NHRP summary pages like this one? If not, I guess the best solution would be for the script to provide some sort of reference ID for the citation. I notice this district has the NHRP ref#79000824. Could the script be adjusted to generate the ref ID into the citation? I think there has to be something more to that auto-generated ref. I don't know how long you folks have been using this, but how do the GA/FA people feel about it? It's a nifty script, for sure, but the way it cites to a generic instruction page is not really helpful. As to moving the refs around, or trying to determine what's contestable or not, that's not really necessary. We've got a cite from a government RS, let's just get it up to spec. The Interior (Talk) 04:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't chime in right away. The architectural style codes in the database are the same as those coded on the National Register nomination form or submission. With the more recent nominations, the architectural styles are listed right on the form, with checkboxes. I'm not sure where the architectural styles for this district were listed or where they came from, since I haven't read this nomination in any specific detail. In any case, is the article at great risk of being substantially wrong if the architectural styles aren't cited to a specific document? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I mean stuff like "Late 19th And 20th Century Revivals, Prairie School, Late Victorian" comes from whatever database this tool searches. Elkman (talk · contribs) may know more about this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused by this statement: if the source isn't good enough for prose, it isn't good enough for an infobox either, no? You have used this source in the first paragraph, also. The Interior (Talk) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- The infobox content comes from an unsourced database. Adding to prose is not appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, so our source here is a script that generates infoboxes? We really need to reference a specific document within the NRHP database. I can't accept your Ref #1 as it stands. (I'm aware that NRHP is a reliable source, but the citation needs to be more detailed.) The Interior (Talk) 05:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have never really looked at the ref that the script generates. I'll have to get back to you on this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- You should take note of the five things sourced to the database. Each is a non-controversial objective claim. The extent to which WP:V and WP:RS need to be enforced is a function of the degree to which claims are considered objective facts and the degree to which they are likely to be challenged. Except for the one use in the text, which could be switched to the .pdf source, I don't see that there is any contestable fact being sourced to the database.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I just swapped out the only contestable use of the database as a ref.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have pointed out problems with the reference in the past, I think on the template talk page. I believe that this is either a problem with the editors or the link displayed on the page when you get the data. You might have better luck asking on the NRHP template talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- How is this as a source? Is there a way to get the script to generate the proper page from that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Let's just use both that ref and the existing one in the article for now, and we can discuss the infobox generator thing with Elkman later on his talk page. The Interior (Talk) 01:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Let's just use both that ref and the existing one in the article for now, and we can discuss the infobox generator thing with Elkman later on his talk page. The Interior (Talk) 01:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- How is this as a source? Is there a way to get the script to generate the proper page from that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have never really looked at the ref that the script generates. I'll have to get back to you on this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Main source is now verifiable, hook source checks out. The Interior (Talk) 13:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)