Talk:Isaac Winslow House

Duplicate article - Historic 1699 Winslow House
The author of this article, also created a later one for the same house as Historic 1699 Winslow House with additional content. I will propose a merge for now, but both articles have apparent conflict of interest and promotional tone problems. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Einbierbitte (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. Proper name for merged article is "Isaac Winslow House".  Is the creator aware of the option to have a redirect from the alternate name (like i just set up for alternate name Winslow House Museum)?  If "Historic 1699 Winslow House" or whatever has ever been used as a name for the house, you can just create a redirect from that name to "Isaac Winslow House".  See Redirect.


 * About the cleanup issues, i would emphasize that adding sources and in-line citations to the sources is the main issue. Tone issues can/do often get cleaned up in the process of making an article well-referenced.  Sometimes it is easiest just to prune an article down to that which is clearly sourced, and let it grow back from that stub. doncram (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with above, should be merged under "Isaac Winslow House", and needs citations for the historical material.Jllm06 (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources, cleanup and other issues
Hey, i've now read the article more carefully, and i don't think all the critical tags added by a vigilant wikipedia editor are needed here. The main issue here is that it would help to add some specific sources, hopefully including some published books and articles describing this site written by third parties, as well as any brochure or other documents produced by the Winslow House Museum itself. One particularly relevant source would be the NRHP program's official registration documents for the site. These can be obtained from the National Register, by request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov.

Otherwise, while there is a mildly "promotional" tone to the current version, it does not appear to have anything controversial. I don't think there are any serious tone or COI issues here at all. Perhaps the most extreme statement it includes (and this is so mild as to make me want to apologize in advance for seeming to complain) is the assertion that children often find one part of the museum to be their favorite part of the tour. Pretty harmless stuff! However, it probably be hard to document that by a reference, so that particular statement should probably eventually edited out (unless there is such a statement in a printed brochure, say, which can be used as a source). However, it's best to start by adding sources and documenting the major statements and facts in the article, tnen clean up any unsupported statements last.

So, mainly i want to say to Winslowdirector, thanks for contributing this article! doncram (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)