Talk:Slater Mill

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Rhode Island 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.
	Rhode Island portal This article is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mills C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills 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.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

United States History

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Expansion needed!

Geez, this Mill is critically important in the development of the U.S. economy and the start of the Industrial Revolution here, and the best we have is a stub article! Need some expansion here! I'll try to start it. Anyone else wish to contribute? --CPAScott 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my thoughts exactly. I live near it and go to festivals there regularly. I was rather annoyed when I noticed Pawtucket's page never even mention(ed) it. Anyway, I know a person that works there, the website has some information, and they have an educational movie they play in the visitor center. I can get some photos. ForestJay 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the Samuel Slater article a bit, but haven't had a chance to expand this one. If you can, that'd be great! --CPAScott 03:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wilkinson Mill?

As the Wilkinson Mill is an important part of the Slater Mill Historic Site, I think it needs more representation here. My suggestion, since they have the same NRHP listing, the title Slater Mill should be changed to Slater Mill Historic Site, with a redirect of both Slater Mill and Wilkinson Mill to the same place. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcbela (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After adding the NRHP Inventory/Nomination document for the site, and noting that it clarifies the NRHP/NHL area is the entire 4.23 acres and includes all 3 buildings of the Slater Mill Historic Site, i agree. Given the source, I just went ahead and renamed the article and boldly moved it from Slater Mill to Slater Mill Historic Site. doncram (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I have a nice photo of the Red House i can add too.--Marcbela (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worker's housing?

The system developed by Richard Arkwright included housing for his employees and their families. Slater didn't necessarily adopt every facet of Arkwright's system, but it might be worth looking into. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly was first

Hey, sorry to burst the bubble, but the Beverly Cotton Manufactory was the first cotton mill in America, the largest and most successful of its time. I know that Slater Mill now calls themselves the first commercially successful mill, but that's been proven untrue now. Slater's mill is, however, the oldest still-standing cotton mill in America. Silivrenion (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but should this be in the lead? I don't think all the stuff about Beverley Mill belongs there in what is supposed to be a summary of the article. Surely it would be better to say "...one of the first cotton mills in America" and go into detail on the subject in the main body of the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's significant that the historic site hasn't acknowledged the cited sources yet, but you are right.. it's really messy. Someone want to put a fresh pair of eyes on it and help clean it up? Silivrenion (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article a bit. :) Silivrenion (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Item Number

One of the item number references is a dead link. The vagaries of the numbering system aren't really germain to the discussion of the site itself. Anyone object to simply deleting the sentence starting with "Slater Mill has the distinction of carrying the first, lowest reference number..."? Generic1139 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove the nrhp reference number discussion from the article. The issue seems to be that Slater Mill has a ref number of 66000001, but a later posting date than other properties with higher numbers. Interesting (though not surprising in a large government database), but not really relevant to information on the historic site itself. Generic1139 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]