Template:Did you know nominations/Glenorchy Parish Church

Glenorchy Parish Church; River Orchy
Created/expanded by Rosiestep (talk). Self nom at 03:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that near the Glenorchy Parish Church, on an islet formed by the River Orchy, is the Macgregors burial place and Saint Conan's well?


 * The church article was created Oct 29; the river article on Oct 30.


 * Symbol question.svg Comment: The Parish Church article appears to be at least one day too old for its own stand-alone DYK? Nom. I am not sure how hard and fast the 5-day rule is, there seems to be some lee-way on that timeline, but I wanted to mention it in the interest of being as complete as possible in my review.  Also, even though the length checks out and the hook seems fine, there is also a close-paraphrase concern with at least one phrase from Page 164 of the public domain Black's guide to Scotland (by Adam and Charles Black).


 * The original states:"The old churchyard which surrounds the parish church contains some ancient gravestones of the clan and the gallows hill of Glenorchy is famed in Highland tradition as a place of execution."


 * The article states: "While the old churchyard which surrounds the parish church contains ancient gravestones, the nearby Glenorchy gallows-hill is famed in Highland tradition as a place of execution."


 * Keeping in mind the 5-day deadline, I would suggest a single DYK? hook for the River Orchy article instead (plus a River Orchy pic) which would contain information about the various points of interest on the islet:
 * ALT1: ... that the River Orchy formed an islet which contains the Glenorchy Parish Church, Macgregors burial place and Saint Conan's well?


 * River Orchy - length fine, newness fine, ALT1 hook would work but there are additional close paraphrasing concerns here as well.


 * The original (Page 290 of Transactions of the Edinburgh Field Naturalists' and Microscopical Society - Volume 5) states in one instance: "When proprietors grew careless and left off protecting the banks these fields received the full force of the current and a large curve has now been cut away from them.


 * The article states: "When proprietors grew careless and left off protecting the banks, these fields received the full force of the current; and a large curve was cut away."
 * Public domain states that "Note, however, that wherever public domain resources are used on Wikipedia they should be properly attributed". Any possible concerns about usage of text from these public domain sources can be handled with placement of the appropriate templates from Template messages/Sources of articles on these two connected articles. --Shearonink (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added PD sources in list format. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

However, I'm troubled by the extensive reliance on public domain sources that are more than a century old. Setting aside questions about copyright and plagiarism, these sources are likely out of date (both current conditions and modern interpretations of these topics might be different), the language is often archaic, and Victorian writers typically emphasized details that are of little interest to modern readers. I spent some time with the article about the church and revised some of the wording to be not only less close to the sources, but also to be less stilted and archaic. I also added a bit of content from modern sources. After the time I spent there, I feel better about the church article. It relies heavily on PD sources, but it feels fairly original in that most of the content from those sources is paraphrased and information from several different sources is commingled in the article. I did not similarly tackle the article about the river, but I found it odd that the article is almost entirely based on sources dating from between 1854 and 1907. I wondered whether interpretations of the geology have changed since 1862, whether the Salix species reported in 1910 is still there, and whether there other aspects of the river are still as described. From a bit of online research, I learned that the river is popular for rafting and fishing, that the surrounding uplands are popular with hillwalkers, that it is close to the boundaries of a national park, and that there is a proposal for a gold mine on the river (BBC News report and company report on the gold prospect). I'd feel better about the inclusion of historical information if the article gave more of a sense of what the river is like today. --Orlady (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I like the photos and the hooks, so I'd love to be able to approve this one.


 * Following up on Orlady's suggestions, I've added more current content, such as gold mining exploration. There's a section now on (current) Tourism to include fishing, hiking, paddling. I fleshed out some geo particulars of hills, pools, falls, and rapids; added some subheaders and imgs. I haven't found current info on Flora and fauna beyond that of trout, which I added. I dropped a line with Dr. B asking if he had the time to add a map. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)--Rosiestep (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Tis more up to date, for sure! And now I have learned that a marilyn is a type of hill! I continue to have some concerns about out of date content. For example, I am underwhelmed by the information, sourced to a 1900 document, that "The falls of the Orchy are 7 miles (11 km) from Dalmally Hotel," since the location of that hotel has no meaning for me (surely it is not an absolute geographic reference). Can the location of the falls be described on some more meaningful basis? The tiny geologic item from 1882 is also distressing. The 1882 item about finding garnets is essentially a piece of gee-whiz trivia -- not particularly authoritative. Much geologic investigation surely has occurred in the last 130 years, so this is at best an isolated factoid. The mining company report indicates that the river valley has thick glacial deposits but bedrock is exposed in the river, that bedrock under at least a large part of the river valley is "metasediment" (metamorphic rock formed from metamorphism of sedimentary rocks) and that the river crosses some quartz sulphide veins with significant concentrations of gold and sometimes also molybdenum. And then there's that mention of Salix. I checked to see if the species name is still in use, and found that the "species" named seems to be considered a subspecies of Salix fragilis, which apparently is fairly common along rivers in the UK. Unless some more solid current information can be obtained on geology or plant life, I think that "Geology" and "Flora" should be eliminated as topics, but the gold prospecting activity should be discussed under the subtitle "Gold prospect." --Orlady (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm feeling much better about the River Orchy article, after various revisions to it. I made one final review of the hook fact(s), however, and (to my dismay) discovered (looking at webpages that didn't load for me earlier) that St. Conan's well does not seem to be on the island with the church: map of church, map of well. --Orlady (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ALT2 ... that the Glenorchy Parish Church (pictured) and the burial place of the Macgregor clan are both located on an islet in the River Orchy? --Orlady (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I think every thing is in order now, so I'm moving this to the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)