Talk:Scott Tower

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 Bruxton talk 14:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Scott Tower was built in 1940 as part of a project to create Holyoke, Massachusetts' "own version of New York City's Central Park"? Source: Kestrel Land Trust, 2021
  • ALT1: ... that Scott Tower, built to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Holyoke, Massachusetts, was cut off from the rest of the city in 1960 by Interstate 91? Source: Aprell May Munford writing for MassLive, 2023
  • Reviewed:

Moved to mainspace by Reconrabbit (talk). Self-nominated at 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Scott Tower; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment: For some reason it says that I moved the article to mainspace, but this was an AfC submission approved by Bkissin. Also, this is my second DYK submission.

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: @Reconrabbit: The article was moved to mainspace on March 13. It has 2097 characters readable prose size. Each claim has a reference. WP:EARWIG shows no copyright problems. No QPQ is required.

For ALT0: the source says early 1940s rather than precisely 1940, but another source confirms 1940.

For ALT1: the source says Community Field Park was split from Anniversary Hill Park by the construction of Interstate 91. I don't know enough about the geography of Holyoke to assess whether this confirms the claim that Scott Tower...was cut off from the rest of the city. I think ALT0 is more interesting anyways so I would go with that. If we wanted to use ALT1 then we would have to recheck the sources.

Some comments on the article:

• Improvements proposed from 2021 would allow replace "from" with "in"
• from [1]: The park quickly became a destination for picnickers, sledders, and nature lovers and the original Anniversary Hill Park ... was split by I-91 in the 1960s. This limited access and led to a steep decline in public use over the following decades: I don't think that these facts are properly mentioned in the article. What do you think about including this before-after contrast? Phlsph7 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I've made the changes suggested to clarify the differences between pre- and post-highway construction. Great catch there. I'm not too hot on Kestrel Land Trust as a source just because it's a little too invested in the goings-on at the park to be a completely independent source, but it's at the very least not user generated content. Anyone with access to historical records of the Holyoke Daily Transcript and Telegram will be able to improve this whole thing by a lot.

I provided ALT1 as a suggestion since it's a sort of ironic result for the park to be cut off (maybe it's not especially clear since there are so few sources in the period immediately after 1960). Speaking as a recent visitor, the "cut off" part is pretty clear. You can see it on a map: you have the entire Holyoke/Oakdale downtown region on the east side of the highway, and the parking lot and playground right on the edge of the highway, and you have to go underneath to reach the rest of the park (which is blocked by a gate). Reconrabbit 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. I made slight adjustments to the new text since it was very close to the formulations in the source. For now, I'll just approve ALT0, sorry if I'm too cautious. If you're fine with ALT0 then there is no need to change anythng. If you think it's important to have ALT1 as an alternative then the easiest solution would be to reformulate it to more closely reflect what the source says.

Approve ALT0. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)