Talk:Empire Tract

Empire Tract has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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: January 2, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Empire Tract appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 December 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Herbert Hoover once farmed sugar beets on the Empire Tract?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Empire Tract.

Wikipedia

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Herbert Hoover once farmed asparagus on the Empire Tract? Source: "Hoover Dedicates New School Named for Him". The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. 1954-08-04. p. 14. Retrieved 2021-11-17 – via Newspapers.com.

ALT1: ... that Herbert Hoover once farmed sugar beets on the Empire Tract? "Two Killed in Wage Dispute". Napa Journal. Napa, California. 26 May 1936. p. 1. Retrieved 17 November 2021 – via Newspapers.com.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sama Jaya Free Industrial Zone

5x expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 23:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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 eligibility:

Cited: - The source given and the sentence it cites does not mention asparagus. Need a source on what was being farmed in 1930s, or removal of the asparagus part of the hook.
Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The hook is interesting, but the source issue is preventing me from giving this the all clear. Sounder Bruce 05:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: That's an excellent catch, and I am grateful for it. I'd thought that they were farming asparagus, but when looking it up in more detail, I see that I was wrong (it was sugar beets). I've amended the article, and added another source about the farming history of the Delta which discusses beet farming on the island. I've also provided an alternate hook for it. jp×g 11:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now, but the hook's original sentence in the article still does not mention the type of crop, nor does its source (LA Times). Sounder Bruce 21:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the LA Times source says that Hoover ran a farm there, the Napa Journal source says that wages were being paid to beet pickers on the Hoover farm, and the Thompson source says that sugar beets were by far the most predominant plant being grown there between 1931 and 1938. To be honest I'm not too attached to the hook, so if this is not enough I would also be fine with "... that Herbert Hoover once farmed the Empire Tract?" jp×g 12:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 should be good to go, assuming the hook originates from the sentence supported by citation 17. Sounder Bruce 05:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 to T:DYK/P6

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dibsing. Per my usual, I will get around to it within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hahahaaaaa okay I definitely didn't let this slip off the visible part of my watchlist and then out of my brain entirely.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Done I think the article has enough content that a two-sentence lead is insufficient for a GA. Even 3 or 4 would be good.

The initial bit of the history section is a bit confusing. From the source cited, it looks like Empire Navigation was responsible for planting on the island in both 1912 and 1913, so to me it would make more sense to mention it by name in the first short paragraph, rather than waiting for paragraph 2. (Also feels like the second sentence about the company should be in para 1, leaving para 2 to start with "In a 1923 report".)
Paragraph split is fixed, but the other part isn't sorted. From the newspaper article cited, it appears that Empire Navigation planted in 1912, so should be identified in that sentence.

Done In para 4, the quote about "adverse conditions" needs a cite following.

Done ~~I also think the paragraph might warrant splitting at "Nearly ten years later", but that's outside the GA criteria and if you disagree I won't fuss.~~ Actually, the whole second half of the paragraph feels confusing to me chronologically. We've got a ferry operating in 1926, then a bridge proposal, then 10 years later a bridge, then next sentence we're back to proposing a ferry in 1926. I think it might be better to split them up topically (one para for the ferry, one about the bridge), but at the very least it needs some rearranging. The rest from here is good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Knowing the history of your work on these lil islands, I'm going to take it as a given that you've used every available source.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I let it slip out my brain entirely too. I'll be back. jp×g 00:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!... I Did It Again. But with this edit, this page will be fresh in my contribs so I see it tomorrow morning. jp×g 13:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable, we'll definitely be docking your next paycheck. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG sir plz ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen... he does it....... for free. jp×g 23:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I have made some modifications based on what you've said above. Take a look :) jp×g 00:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG Mostly good, just the one thing I noted above (either to be changed or let me know that I'm wrong) and then we're set. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: How's it look now? jp×g 02:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, passing now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]