Talk:Berkeley Faculty Club

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 Vaticidalprophet talk 18:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Faculty Club at UC Berkeley, built in 1902, has been reported to be a hotspot for paranormal activity? Source: http://www.weirdca.com/location.php?location=322
  https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1996/1030/halloween.html
  https://web.archive.org/web/20230725191858/https://dailycal.org/2014/03/10/faculty-club-uc-berkeleys-haunted-landmark
  https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-berkeley-gazette-a-haunting-at-the-f/133091387/
  • ALT1: ... that works by artists such as Ray Boynton and Jacques Schnier can be found in the corridors and meeting rooms of the Berkeley Faculty Club? Source: https://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2003-10-31/article/17674
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1955 Brazilian coup d'état

Created by Bananagrams00 (talk). Nominated by Bogger (talk) at 13:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Berkeley Faculty Club; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Length Y
• Age Y (moved from draftspace on 15 September)
• Article content and adequate sourcing N There are two primary sources, but the majority of the content is sourced from elsewhere.
• Hook
  • Interesting Y, I favour the main hook over ALT1.
  • Both hooks are sourced and matches article. Y
• Everything looks good, happy to approve. —Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 03:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bananagrams00, Bogger, and Panamitsu: This article needs to beef up its sources, as it appears to be relying too heavily on campus newspapers, etc. Please look for independent reliable secondary sources per WP:RS. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: is it suitably beefed? -Bogger (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bogger: There are still a couple of primary sources, for example reference 2. It'd be better to completely remove these if secondary sources cover the topic. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: removed one primary source, and replaced another with a secondary source. -Bogger (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bogger: I'm not too sure about the sources on alumni.berkely.edu as they seems to be a form of a primary source as they appear to be associated with the club and only mention the club to talk about discounts to it. I'm not familiar with the subject or policy surrounding this issue so I'm having a bit of trouble understanding. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: ok I've replaced that reference with the by-laws from the club itself. While this is a primary source, it is not an advertisement, bravado, prose, or claim. -Bogger (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Sorry for the ping but do you think this counts as adequate sourcing? I'm quite reluctant to approve it. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Although I hope Cielquiparle will return to approve the hook. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu, Z1720, and Bogger: Removed Weird California as a source and added a couple more; rewrote the text in the article about the ghost stories. Think it is much better now but someone else will have to approve. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ready for re-review by Panamitsu or another reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been having difficulty this one so I'll pass it on to another reviewer. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Second tick to ensure the DYK bot picks up the green tick. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Events

@Bogger: I know you are having fun with this with the focus on so-called paranormal activity, but the reality is that the club is more known or popular for hosting events like weddings, receptions, and special events, but you don’t say anything about it in the article. You might want to review the website. Viriditas (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Added refs for events -Bogger (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Good work, but I think you should use the meeting venue section for this material as well and maybe consider changing the section to just "Facilities". IMO, meetings, special events, weddings, and receptions should all be lumped into one section. There's also the guest rooms, which I think are categorized as a "hotel". Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved stuff around. Could you have a look at the DYK nomination..? It needs final approval -Bogger (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bogger:. Happy to do so in about nine to ten hours from now if someone hasn’t got to it first. I’m offline until then. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bogger: I'm looking through the article right now. I made a quick copyedit, but I couldn't help but notice that given the wealth of content available for this article (A History of the Faculty Club at Berkeley‎, 1990, OCLC 23380510; The Faculty Club, 1995, ISBN 978-1-85490-433-1, and the current NRHP summary of the history in the article which is barely being used) the article is still quite small (3250 characters at the moment) since it was first submitted more than a month ago. I'm honestly disappointed that it hasn't been expanded at all since that time. I think right now, it would take you like 10 minutes just to highlight the main points found in this report. I think that would be a good way forward. It's undue to give such tremendous weight to so-called paranormal activity (a bit of a joke, really) when there's so much history at work here and barely any of it in the article. I'm sorry if you think I'm being tough and uncompromising, but there is a basic level of presentation and completeness that we should strive to achieve, no matter the size of the article. So, please, take a quick moment to glean the NRHP link above and see if you can briefly summarize the most important points. I would find that greatly encouraging and it would spur me to submit a review. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)