Talk:Bitting Historic District

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 23 January 2020 by reviewer CNMall41 (talk · contribs).

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.

Kansas Low‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas 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.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

FloridaArmy AFC submission quality issue for new NRHP articles[edit]

User:CNMall41 and User:Whoisjohngalt, I see you modified/improved and accepted the AFC submission from User:FloridaArmy, but I think you should not accept new NRHP articles like this one, because it is worse in quality than what can be generated very easily using the available tool supporting NRHP article creation. I believe I have communicated plenty about this with FloridaArmy before.

Specifically, the article was created without NRHP infobox and without NRHP-related categories (although Whoisjohngalt later added a category or two) and without a proper reference to the available NRHP nomination document. All of which would are provided by use of the available NRHP infobox/article generator tool (general info about this available at wp:NRHPHELP). For this site, here is the output generated by that tool suggested for use in this article, ready for copy-pasting. For example, note the tool provides a much better drafted reference: <ref name="nrhpdoc">{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=04000776}}|title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Bitting Historic District |publisher=[[National Park Service]]|author= |date= |accessdate=January 24, 2020}} With {{NRHP url|id=04000776|photos=y|title=accompanying pictures}}</ref> which includes link to the 15 photos of this historic district provided in its NRHP nomination, not mentioned/linked in FloridaArmy's submission at all. FloridaArmy's submission had a bare url link to just the text document; this version includes title, publisher, author, date, accessdate info and/or spaces for those to be added.

If FloridaArmy is unwilling to copy-paste what is so easily available and is unwilling to go on and provide some further value added, but rather instead submits worse/lesser stuff, I think their submission hurts wikipedia overall. I think then their articles should automatically be rejected, and/or they should be banned from submitting NRHP-related articles, or otherwise they should somehow be dissuaded from doing this. Is this the right way to bring up the issue? Should I make a proposal at Talk page of wp:AFC? Or raise it at wp:ANI as a chronic, long-term problem? This is my first step, anyhow, informing CNMall41 and Whoisjohngalt.

(By the way, I have recently been horribly slammed with criticism and an unfortunate, unjustified-in-my-view block(!) for my own creation of NRHP articles, based on another editors' criticism of me regarding categories, but this here is different, simpler. There is no question whether my work is much better than what the tool provides (my work is indeed much better); here what FloridaArmy provides is below that standard in several/many ways, and they provide nothing additional at all, AFAICT. I am not just trying to bash FA out of frustration/anger about being bashed myself; i will deal with that separately. Anyhow, here I think it hurts the interest of WikiProject NRHP and the willingness of NRHP editors to continue contributing and improving articles, if stuff like this one is getting into Wikipedia.)

--Doncram (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are raising editor conduct (including my own) in the article space which I don't believe is the appropriate forum but I will gladly answer. AfC submissions are never perfect and I can say that I am not interested in whether the appropriate information box is used but rather the notability and promotional tone of a submission. If submissions were required to be perfect, I doubt there would be very many approved. I do clean up submissions from time to time but also leave a lot for other editors since Wikiepdia is never finished. If there is conduct regarding the approval of articles that you feel is not warranted, you can always address those in the proper forum. I cannot speak to the conduct of any other party you mention here.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]