Talk:Joseph Priestley House/Archive 3

Horrible news
There is a good chance they may close the Joseph Priestley House this summer. See this from ACS, andthis from the local newspaper (which has some useful further information on recent annual visitation and budget). The Priestley House itself is fighting this. On more pleasant news, this work is officially recognized here. I will add this to the article, need to be more calm to be neutral. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a new paragraph about the potential closure in the "Ownership and museum" section. I would move the current sentence about 2007 attendance to the new paragraph (and include the more detailed attendance and budget information from the newspaper there too). I am not sure if the new paragraph should come after the current third paragraph or after the current fifth paragraph. After the third it would be a logical continuation of the museum aspect. After the fifth it would be a new topic (1-3 are museum, 4 is items from the house, 5 is other historic places in Northumberland). I think I prefer putting it after three, but will think about it some more. If this is really the end, after 5 makes more sense (closed closes the section). If this is a scare, but it stays open then after 3 seems better long term.
 * I also wonder if we should try to get this on the Main Page as WP:TFA - perhaps the increased publicity could help keep it open. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you write up a paragraph and add it and then I'll tweak it. :) We could ask Raul to run the article on the main page - I like that idea. Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I found the original report by the PHMC here. I will try to do the refs correctly Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is sad news and I think getting it as Today's Featured Article would be a great idea. Dincher (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I am done with my additions (one and half new paragaphs, add a bit to the lead to reflect possible closure). The flow seemed better with the new material at the end, including the January to March closure and attendance from before, now in its own paragraph. Since there is more detailed attendance information (as a large quote as I was unsure how to paraphrase some of it), I changed the Bashore ref to the 2007-2008 attendance holding steady after recent declines (also in the newsletter). The new Chemical & Engineering News article is only online so far, so it does not have volume or page numbers (yet?). I think I did the new references OK, but please check them carefully. Finally I wondered if the File:1874 Priestley Gathering.jpg might work in the ACS section now and tried that. I am not sure if I like it there, so revert if you do not. Hope my additions are OK, I tired very hard to be neutral but fear I may not have been. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good - I tweaked a few things, but nothing major. I like where you have placed the information in the article. I've removed the new image. Although I like the image itself, I think it detracts from your beautiful picture of the home itself. I didn't see any neutrality issues. The article doesn't say, for example, "A tragic result of the recent economic downturn..." :) Awadewit (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've requested that put this article on the main page here. Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyedits, checking things out, and asking Raul. I will do my best to go back there again before July - any pictures you want (re)taken? The current images were all taken in December and are a bit dark. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should just take as many as possible? That way, if the house does close, we will have decent images of it before it starts to fall into disrepair! Awadewit (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had thought much the same thing. Will do my best. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see we will be on the main page. Ruhr, do you want to write to the house to alert them or should I? Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks again Raul. Since you contacted them back when we were writing this, why don't you contact them, please? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've emailed them. Awadewit (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a meeting with the PHMC on April 9 in Northumberland attended by over 100 - see here. Is this worth adding a sentence on? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a sentence on that would be good. Something about the public outcry, eh? :) Awadewit (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do it tomorrow - am calling it a night. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence - used a quote from the second page of the article by the PHMC chair saying he did not see how the place could close. ALso quoted public outcry. Please tone this down if it is not neutral. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it a bit more and removed the speculation regarding the house not closing due to the public outcry. The outcry is more demonstrable - the people showing up, the press coverage, etc. Awadewit (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was not sure about including that quote. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What to add here, if anything for TFA?
My guess is that some people who read this article when it is WP:TFA may want to comment with the PHMC (pro or con). Would it make sense to add a brief list of all six sites slated for closure and a link to the addresses for the PHMC director and governor? This could be added to all six articles' talk pages. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your idea sounds pretty good to me. Dincher (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, here is what I cam up with - next section, I will remove it if it is not OK, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks - I am making it its own section (level two header) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the same note to all six article talk pages and the Pennsylvania and NRHP WIkiProjects. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)