Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/ProgressOnNHLsByState

I'm curious what it is that separates the Minnesota list from the Washington list. Murderbike (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're refering to the MN list having B-class rating while WA list has just Start-class by the rating scheme that I have been applying here. In that rating scheme an NRHP list-article bascially gets B-class when every one of its NRHP articles indexed has hit Start. (There are some other requirements too, but that is the main one.) The MN list-article was the first one to get there. Every one of its NHL articles has a link to the corresponding NHL webpage. Almost all have NRHP text/photo set PDF documents included, and if they don't it is not for failing to try (the only articles that don't have those PDFs are the NHLs where those PDFs are not available on-line at the NPS). A few of the WA NHL articles need development, by adding those references and perhaps otherwise, to justify their getting Start rating. Hope this helps, doncram (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What state needs the most help?

I find that so many of them have been redirected the towns or whatever that it's hard to tell which needs the most help. dm (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i have mostly just been trying to address the problems that Lvklock has been raising in comments, in smaller states where i thot i could eventually address them all. Lvklock's comments about KY, just posted, looks like a long list but many are easy fixes. doncram (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe i meant TN, same issues, or HI, or any of the others still marked orange. :( doncram (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Started working on HI - lots of complications dm (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer detailed checklists over to wp:NRHP attention?

Appraiser started up Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP articles needing attention, shortcut wp:NRHP attention. Perhaps some of the detail checklist items in the July 4 column in the main table here should be transferred over? On the other hand, if they would get lost among other NRHP items, and would lose their connection by state, maybe it's best to take care of the items here. Perhaps keep working here on the state-specific checklists until done at C-class quality, our July 4 standard, then transfer any remaining issues over to that list? doncram (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]