Talk:Dowse Sod House

Dowse Sod House has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 17, 2013. (Reviewed version).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Nebraska Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Nebraska portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dowse Sod House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be using WP:IAR on one aspect of the rules here: Technically, there might be a little original research here, but it's of the "describe how sources were evaluated in footnotes" sort, which I think is fully justified in a case where there's a lot of ambiguity in the sources. If there's any sources that back your arguments, mentioning them would strengthen this aspect, and really help you out if you intend to go for featured article.

So, I'm giving this a pass on well-referenced. In fact, it uses extra references and checks to make sure that it's as accurate as possible. Other than those couple footnotes, everything is fine on that point.

So.

It's comprehensive, seems to us all relevant sources, and provides loads of extremely interesting background.

I think this is an excellent article, and think it deserves to be GA.

The only real issue that could be improved is that the historical significance of the house isn't fully described. I mean, a homestead sod house is almost certainly significant, but it'd be good to summarise the arguments that got it onto the National Register of Historic Places, because, you know, why not?

✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the GA review. I appreciate your efforts. For what it's worth, I'm plannning to try to do some GA reviews myself once I've been through the process a time or two more with articles of my own—I want to get a feel for how various reviewers handle it before I try it.

I was a little worried about the OR thing myself, especially the date on the tornado. Note that I used "early 1940s" in the article, which is consistent with sources. I thought it important to put a footnote in, lest someone notice the (possible incorrect) 1941 date in some sources and insert that, thinking that they're being more precise: the footnote is there to warn editors about that.

I'll take your suggestion and move some of the statements regarding the historic significance of the house to the lead. I've got them in the very last paragraph, but it'd probably be good to put them in a more conspicuous position as well.

Thanks again for your time and effort on this. -- Ammodramus (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If in doubt, what you could do is just put the facts forwards without drawing conclusions, which is ample for what the text cites. You can, for example, cite the tree being destroyed by tornado, and just leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dowse Sod House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111131851/http://visitnebraska.com/see_and_dos/7361 to http://visitnebraska.com/see_and_dos/7361

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]