Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thistle, Utah/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:22, 5 October 2010 [1].

---

Thistle, Utah

Thistle, Utah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Thistle, Utah/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Thistle, Utah/archive2

Nominator(s): Dave (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a subject that has always fascinated me and I think would make an interesting main page article someday. There is also a personal motive, those of you who are frequent contributors of this forum may remember me as a roadgeek. While I'm sure this article has some roadgeek tones to it, I'm writing about another subject to prove to myself I can write about more than just roads. Dave (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Image review issue: just File:Thistle landslide.png. What base map was this based on? Was it a public domain map or created from available data? Similarly, what sources were used for the railway lines? (commons:Commons:Image casebook#Maps & satellite imagery, WP:CITE#IMAGE, WP:IUP) Jappalang (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Map is based from GIS data, which is public domain. I will ensure that is added. I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean by "what sources were used for the railway lines?" With a few exceptions, all sources used for this article are clear that the affected rail line was the D&RG's main line. However, most sources used pre-date the 1996 acquisition by the Union Pacific Railroad. Is that your concern, that I need a source that explicitly mentions the acquisition? If so, that should be easy to find. Dave (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the Thistle landslide image, I added links to each of the shape files used. Also, after double checking the State Geographic Information Database, I found a notice that the files are considered to be PD, so I changed the license to reflect that. –Fredddie™ 18:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fredddie, Commons consider that geographical data (bunch of numbers) is ineligible for copyright protection. Regardless, thank you for providing the links to the data (which are needed). Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a source for the 1996 Acquisition by the Union Pacific. I hope it's clear that the UPRR source only covers the fact that the line was acquired by the UPRR, while the rest of the paragraph is using other sources. Dave (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

All images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ref formatting not consistent in the way the page numbers are formatted, and the date formats. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That is embarrassing. I checked this before nomination I promise =-). I'll get to work on it. Thanks for the observation. Dave (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this has the potential to become an FA but it still needs quite a bit of work and the help of a good copyeditor; a few examples from the lead:

• "Remnants of the Thistle schoolhouse, built in 1911". So the remnants were built in 1911?
• "In April 1983, a massive landslide (known as a slump) moved part of the mountain ...". What mountain?
• "... and blocked the Spanish Fork River, forming an earthen dam". What other kind of dam could it have been? Why not something like "damming the Spanish Fork River"? And does "dam" really need to be linked?
• "... until they were rebuilt on a higher alignment that overlook the area".

• A few general points on the rest of the article:

• I'm unconvinced by the ordering of sections. As this is an article about a town (or is it?) I'd expect to see the usual cities structure, with the History section first.

I borrowed the article structure from another FA ranked ghost town article. However, I agree that the article reads better with some of the technical details at the end. I have re-arranged some sections, although I have kept Geography first, as this section contains the location information that sets up the history section.

• "By the 1980s, Thistle was home only to a few families." We were told in the lead that Thistle was a ghost town, which I take to mean that it has no inhabitants, and that was 20–30 years ago anyway. Does anyone live there now?

Re-worded. To answer your question, no, the townsite is completely abandoned.

• "As temperatures warmed ...". Temperatures don't "warm", they increase. Similarly "the temperatures were too cold".
• "The residents argued the maintenance workers knew the ground was unstable in the area years before landslide began; however, implemented measures that had no effect in preventing it." I just can't make sense of that.

Unfortunately the wording of the source is confusing too. I had to play with this several times. I think I have something that works. Better now?

• "It was noted that Thistle's oldest resident celebrated her 90th birthday at the evacuation center in Birdseye." It was noted by whom? Why not just "Thistle's oldest resident celebrated ..."?

Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the copyedits you've made to the article. This is good feedback. I have implemented your suggestions verbatim, except where noted inline. Dave (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have finished my own copyedit of the article. You suggested I recruit someone to copyedit the article. While that would be the easier way, I'm trying to force myself to be more careful about grammar and punctuation errors. As such, I'm going to try to fix my own messes. We'll see how that goes. =-) Thanks again. Dave (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources review: Just a couple of small points:-

• Inconsistency: "United States Geological Survey" in ref 1, "U.S. Geological Survey" in 4
• Ref 25: Link Deseret News

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for checking. Dave (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments refs that are PDF format need the "|format=PDF" parameter. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No, they don't. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • "format: Format, e.g. PDF. HTML implied if not specified." — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Not sure if it's required, but it's usually a good idea. Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Either way, thanks for taking care of it. Dave (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.