Talk:Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum

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.

South Dakota Low‑importance

	South Dakota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota 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.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph of the museum and castle structures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in South Dakota may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum contains 3,200 tons of petrified wood?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum.

Wikipedia

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Pyramids, Lemmon Petrified Wood Park

... that Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum is the largest petrified wood park in the world? Source: Gerloff, Scott (December 1975). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Lemmon Petrified Park". NPGallery. National Park Service. Retrieved November 19, 2017.
- ALT1: ... that the largest petrified wood park in the world features 100 pyramids made out of cannonball concretions and petrified wood? Source: Honerkamp, Bill (July 9, 1972). "Petrified Wood Park in Lemmon drew 17,000 visitors last year". Rapid City Journal. Lemmon. p. 3. Retrieved February 21, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1997 Spring Creek flood
- Comment: QPQ not yet complete but very likely to pass. Added ALT1 in case the repetition in ALT0 is unwieldy, but feedback on the wording is very welcome.

5x expanded by TCMemoire (talk). Self-nominated at 00:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

The wording here is need of help. What are the sources referring to to make the claim, given Petrified Forest (California), Ginkgo Petrified Forest State Park, and Petrified Forest National Park are all larger by suare acerage, and likely the "tonnage" would be greater if the fossil specimens at each were tallied as the claimed tonnage of the national register of historic places form did.--Kev min § 20:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: The difference here is this is a manmade petrified wood park—a sculpture park of petrified wood—not a petrified forest. The NRHP form sourced to the claim in the lead here also supports this claim. – T C Memoire 01:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the application form, while using the asserted verbiage, is too vague to qualify as reliable here. It doesn't seem to actually make the distinction that you make here between preserved forests and a "park". I wouldnt have issues if the hooks didn't use the largest claim, something that is nebulous.--Kev min § 01:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought on the application also brings up that its (essentially) a primary source for the statement, while we should be using secondary and tertiary sources to back up the veracity of the claim.--Kev min § 16:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: I agree, and will concede that the claim may certainly be outdated, as the NRHP document is from 1977. Unfortunately, roadside attractions often go ignored by non-newspaper secondary sources (many of the newspaper articles in this article count as secondary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS), so it is difficult to find one that substantiates this claim; and most local material (including the book in Further reading) is offline and inaccessible to me. Should we strike this claim from the article as well? It is very often repeated in sources, but I agree that this seems to be an extension of the park's own claim. May I propose two alternative hook options (supported by the sources given in ALT0 and ALT1, repectively, and I have added inlines for both):

ALT2: ...that the Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum features 100 pyramids made out of cannonball concretions and petrified wood?

ALT3: ...that the Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum contains 3,200 tons of petrified wood?

– T C Memoire 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article cited and sourced. With regards to the "largest" statements, adding caveats to the sentences it appears should be good enough (eg "when dedicated", "claimed as in the NRHP application" ...), once that is done the prose will be natural. Sources are verified. Both Alt2 and Alt3 are cited and interesting. Good to go once the article is massaged a bit.--Kev min § 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: Thanks; lead paragraph and text referring to the claim under Description have been reworded (and did a little bit of restructuring, e.g. moving History#Prehistory down to the Paleontology and geology section as it fits much better there). – T C Memoire 12:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, the restructure reads well and clears up the wording issue. everything looks good to go now!--Kev min § 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]