Talk:Berwind, Colorado

Page creation

Please add to this page! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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 MeegsC (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Mining ghost town, Berwind

• ... that Berwind (pictured), a mining ghost town in Colorado, was a battle site during the Colorado Coalfield War in 1913 and 1914? Source: Blood Passion: The Ludlow Massacre and Class War in the American West

• Reviewed: Neil Hopkinson

Created by Pbritti (talk). Nominated by Ashleyyoursmile (talk) at 19:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC).

• Article satisfies newness and length requirements. Information is backed up by reliable sources. Hook is interesting and short enough. Earwig flagged "wiki9.info" as a source for plagiarism at 94.4%, but I believe it is a copy-and-paste edition of Wikipedia. QPQ pending. Ping me when QPQ is done so that I could see the progress. HĐ (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• HĐ, thank you for the review. I have provided the QPQ. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Good to go. Great work to both the creator and the nominator! HĐ (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Berwind, Colorado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Starkenborgher (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Going to start on this one - bear with me, this is my first review, but I'll do my best. At first glance, GA status appears to be in reach, granted that some improvements be made.

Initially fulfilled criteria:

• Besides for some minor changes, which I would prefer to be the final thing to be done, after any potential reorganizations or other major changes, the writing reasonably satisfies criterion 1, being well-written with no apparent violations of the MOS.
• It also satisfies criterion 4, as the article doesn't really have many points where it could be contentious, and the writing is objective throughout.
• The edit history clearly shows the article is stable, so criterion 5 also seems satisfied off the bat.
• The three photographs and a map, which are all tagged with their file copyright statuses, aid in illustration. Adding a modern-day picture would be a major boon, if such a thing could happen, but I think criterion 6 is reasonably satisfied without one.

So this leaves criteria 2 and 3 - I'll be doing a more intensive look through of the sources to check 2b, 2c, and 2d aren't violated in the article. For criterion 3, I think the main thing is improving the organization. The lead is serviceable, but could be expanded with succinct summary about the decline of the town and its state in the modern day. I don't like the current description section. I think changing it to a geography section there would be good, keeping the location and maybe the transport info in there, and moving the info about its present state to a new subsection called modern day or something, within the history section. Also, the history section may go into too much detail about events outside of Berwind in the conflict, so try to reduce the detail in parts that indirectly deal with Berwind, while keeping the general background, and also making sure the background doesn't do too much. I'll point out more specific stuff to be changed in a bit, this is just preliminary stuff.

Oh, and beyond just reorganization for 3: a short etymology section, about the name, with some general background maybe on how company towns were named in general? Also, climate information is always a good add for lighter geography sections.

Hi, this is Pbritti! I was looking at your recommendations for improvement (I for the most part agree that these would be effective moves to improve the article). Would you want me to implement these, particularly adding etymology and moving the modern information, before the completion of your review? Thanks for your promptness; I have a GA review I've working on for too long I need to finish today. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you can make those moves now. I'm making good progress on checking number 2, and it looks good so far. Starkenborgher (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Status query

Starkenborgher, Pbritti, where does this review stand at the moment? Starkenborgher hasn't edited on Wikipedia for four weeks, while Pbritti has yet to make any of the requested edits mentioned in the review so far despite significant activity elsewhere in the nearly six weeks since the most recent response here. Please let me know. Many thanks.

Repinging Starkenborgher and Pbritti because I neglected to sign my previous post, so the pings wouldn't have gone out. My apologies. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been behind on this project and plan to submit the requested edits for review on Friday (16 July). Apologies to Starkenborgher. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, you still haven't posted any edits to address the issues raised and another six weeks have gone by; this review is now three months old and is effectively abandoned. If you haven't done the necessary edits by the end of August, seven days from now, the nomination will be failed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. If you are willing to accept an extension until exactly September 10th, all requested edits and more will be applied. I can explain the lack of appropriate action on my talk page if need be. Again, I am very sorry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, September 10 it is. I hope to see the edits before the end of the day (UTC). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging BlueMoonset and Starkenborgher on deadline review. Don't see many changes myself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz, I called for a second opinion a couple of days ago, because I have my doubts both about the original review and the minor edits made to address them. I am hoping another reviewer will show up to give Berwind, Colorado a full review, or at least an opinion on how it meets the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at it and the criteria I think it looks good I would like a little more info on the archaeology section but other then that I think it fits The furret lover (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The above comment was by an editor new to Wikipedia and with no experience at GAN, so another reviewer is definitely needed here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Pbritti, I see a one-sentence unsourced addition made on September 10 (along with the word "the"), and that's it. Do you really feel you have applied "all requested edits and more"? And if not, why haven't you done anything in the month since? I'm looking for reasons to keep this nomination open any longer, and I'm having trouble finding any. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been another week, and no action has been taken nor response made. After well over four months, and having been abandoned by its reviewer and effectively so by its nominator despite multiple extensions, I'm closing this as unsuccessful. My suggestion would be that before any further nomination is attempted, a peer review be requested and any recommended work done. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)