Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Assessment

Credit where due

The template borrowed from to start this project was Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. Since they seem to know what they're doing. :) --Ebyabe 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion where the action is

I posted topics to discuss "Quality rating of NHL articles" and "Quality rating of lists" in the main Talk area of WP:NRHP. Eventually I would hope main results of that discussion could get reflected in the Assessment article here.

By the way, the Assessment article states that "A (adds articles to Category:A-Class National Register of Historic Places articles) should only be used for articles that have A-Class status" which is circular. Shouldn't it read something like "should be used for articles that have achieved Good Article status through Good Article review, have been further improved, and are now ready for Featured Article review" ?

doncram 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

old proposal

I just removed the following old proposal from the Assessement page, where it is not needed.

Quality scale for List-Type-Articles of NRHP sites (Proposed)

List-Type-Articles in WP:NRHP are articles that are lists of NRHP and other sites, but which are beyond mere lists. Class=list should be used to indicate something that is merely a list, e.g. as in a mere category. List-type-articles, instead, can advance in quality rating from Stub to Start to B to FL.

Examples are:

• Most of the 54 state-wide lists indexed inList of National Historic Landmarks by state, most currently rated Stub or Start,
• List of Chicago Landmarks, the only WP:NRHP list-type-article that has achieved Featured status, and
• List of Civil War Monuments of Kentucky MPS.

The goal of this quality scale proposal is to objectively recognize progress towards goal of FL status. Per WP:WIAFL, a Featured List is "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed". It meets manual of style guidelines, and any guidelines of relevant wikiprojects. It includes some photos where relevant. (Note, a photo for each list item is not required. Some FL's have very few photos. List of Chicago Landmarks has about 28 photos for its 220 or so sites. List of mammals of Canada is a FL with ~116 photos and ~85 no-photo entries. FL List of Dartmouth College faculty has about 100 entries but just 1 photo.)

A proposed set of criteria for Stub, Start, and B articles that are primarily lists within WP:NRHP is as follows:

Stub class is for any list that include WP:NRHP in its talk page but fails to meet all of the "Start" class criteria. Some items listed may only be red-links. These may optionally be given either "class=stub" or "class=list".

Start class is for any list

1. that is useful in the sense described at WP:WIAFL
2. that is factually accurate as far as it goes. Support for description of items can be supported by an item's article, or can be footnoted separately (although support by the articles is preferred and required by this proposal to achieve B class rating).
3. that is nearly comprehensive
4. there should not be controversy about its scope, for example what items are to be listed
5. displays photos of some of its items
6. has an article of at least Stub class for every item on the list that is an NRHP
7. reference(s) supporting near-completeness must be provided.

B class is for any list that

1. meets Start criteria
2. that is comprehensive, with no controversy about its completeness
3. has an article of at least Start class quality for every item that is an NRHP
4. has support for all statements. In descriptions of items, support is to be found in the corresponding articles for the items, not in separate footnotes. This is to improve readability and to direct reader attention to Wikipedia articles, not to outside sources.
5. displays a separate photo for a substantial number of its items
6. reference(s) supporting comprehensiveness must be provided

Good class does not exist. An article that is primarily a table or list of NRHP sites will be rejected by Good Article review processes, and directed to try for Featured List instead. There is no provision in Wikipedia for a "Good List".

A class for lists, likewise, cannot exist in Wikipedia.

Featured List must meet WP:WIAFL and get through the wikipedia defined review process, outside of WP:NRHP. In that Featured List review process, NRHP project members can seek to ensure that the listmeet B class criteria defined above. It may be useful for nominators of an article to include a checklist of support for how the B class rating is met, in the Talk page, to communicate to evaluators outside of WP:NRHP what it takes to get concurrence on Featured List rating in WP:NRHP.

That is the entire proposal. It was not officially adopted as policy by WP:NRHP, which in fact has no official process for making a decision to adopt any given proposal. It is just the only proposal that has been put forward which provides guidance for NRHP list-type-article evaluation, and it is one that articulates a graduated approach up towards FL status.

Comments/suggestions on this proposal were invited, and some discussion is available in Archive 5 of WP:NRHP's Talk page (which was paired with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 4#Quality rating of NHL articles. It was commented that this proposal is perhaps too arbitrary, too detailed, too bureaucratic, and that it would not necessarily carry weight in the FL decision process. It may be that this proposal's criteria are too stringent, yielding lower ratings than some might prefer. However, these are just guidelines for lower level ratings. It was suggested that any list-type-article achieving the criteria for a given level justifies WP:NRHP support in its rating being at least that high. Further, the FL decision process criteria states that FL candidates should meet criteria of relevant wikiprojects, and it remains to be shown if WP:NRHP evaluation carries weight in any proposal there. The criteria have been applied in rating the state-wide lists of NHLs indexed in List of National Historic Landmarks by state, and it was found to be relatively easy to evaluate any one list quickly using these criteria. To reiterate, however, this is not an official policy, and anyone may choose to reset ratings of any wikipedia article below the level of Good Article, at any time. It is hoped that this guideline is helpful to evaluators and to list authors, so that all can see a coherent set of rating criteria here and understand what would generally be accepted as sufficient to justify a given rating.

The proposal was not accepted, anyhow. --doncram (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for mid-importance assessment

Many or most versions of the NRHP nomination form include a space for the SHPO to rate whether the property is significant at the local, statewide, or national level (see section 3 on p. 1). If the SHPO has selected a national significance level, then it seems to me that fact should create a rebuttable presumption that the corresponding Wikipedia article should be assessed at mid-importance (or higher where other criteria indicate). In instances where the SHPO has checked two of these significance levels, we should only consider the higher of the two SHPO ratings for the purpose of importance assessment.

I believe this is probably a fairly evident and noncontroversial approach to importance ratings. Unless anyone objects here, I plan to edit the criteria accordingly. — Ipoellet (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No comments. I have added the criterion. — Ipoellet (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Project Proposal

I am proposing a grant to fund a Wikipedian in Residence at the University of Pittsburgh to facilitate the transfer of historical content contained in the University's archives and collections into Wikimedia projects. I am currently the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar with the Library and Archives of the University of Pittsburgh and have discovered the wealth of content related to historical women that resides in the Archives and Library collections. Your support is solicited for the Project Grant that can be seen here. Part of the grant-making process requires notification of those who would like to support this project.

I am the potential grantee and believe that being in the position of Wikipedian-in-Resident will make a significant improvement to contributions to Pennsylvania topics. My editing history already demonstrates my commitment to creating content on topics related to women. As a Wikipedian-in-Residence I would be training new and experienced contributors and highlight the available resources contained in the archives and collections at the University that will improve the content on Pennsylvania.

I know the potential for the improvement and addition of content is great. Not only is your support requested but I would be very, very grateful to any other editors who can identify topics that need to be addressed and topics that need improvement. All advice is sincerely welcome. Thank you for your consideration.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ouachita Parish High School

I have fixed all outstanding issues and expanded the article. Could someone please re-assess?

Ktkvtsh (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)