Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elcor, Minnesota/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2017.

Elcor, Minnesota

 * Nominator(s): DrGregMN (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Elcor, Minnesota, one of many small mining communities that once existed on the Mesabi Iron Range of Northern Minnesota. Elcor was a mining location, built by the mining company to house the workers for its mines. Many of these communities quickly came and went; Elcor was one of the few communities which had some staying power, existing for 59 years before it was abandoned. Unlike many other mining locations, the residents of Elcor had something special and unique: amenities other locations lacked, which included their own post office, mercantile, churches, law enforcement, a primary school and a railroad station. Because Elcor was an unicorporated community, it was extremely difficult to research a ghost town like this, and a lot of time and resources went into amassing information about the veracity of the community. No resource was left untouched in the preparation of this article and it provides the most comprehensive information about the community in one source. The article is modeled loosely on the FA Pithole, Pennsylvania and comments from both Peer Review and the GA Review procees seem to indicate it meets FAC criteria. The article both reads and flows well thanks to multiple revisions by the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. DrGregMN (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * File:Don_H._Bacon.jpg: don't agree that a non-free image is justified here
 * I have removed the File:Don_H._Bacon (at least for now) per the recommendation of Brianboulton below.


 * File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Elcor,_MN.jpg, File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nikkimaria. Captions fixed.
 * With regard to File:Don_H._Bacon.jpg, the image was provided by Cleveland-Cliffs for use by the authors in their copyrighted publication. I can't be sure the image is not free, since the photograph was taken before the subjects death in 1922. If this becomes an issue as the nomination progresses, it can be removed.
 * With regard to File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg, I cannot be sure when it was first published. This was a free leaf that was in the Minnesota Collection at the Reference Collection of Wilson Library at the University of Minnesota.  The librarians could not track down the original source, but were able to rule out Sanborn Maps from the scale.  We were able to provide a rough date from the information contained on the map.  I can contact/visit the University of Minnesota again in an attempt to track down the source, but am not hopeful since the librarians were unable to do so the first time.
 * With regard to the File:Elcor,_Minnesota.jpg, this is from the Krause collection of donated photos to the Iron Range Historical Society. I do not believe they had a specific publication date, but a rough date is provided by the information contained in the photo.  I will check with the Iron Range Historical Society to see if they can provide me with a more specific date of publication.
 * I have emailed the Iron Range Historical Society requesting this information.
 * Response from the Iron Range Historical Society: On Oct 23, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Iron Range Historical Society  wrote:


 * Greg,
 * Kathy and I looked at the Elcor reunion book and at the 3 photos we have in the Krause collection and none has a date or original photographer listed.
 * Sorry,
 * Shelly


 * Iron Range Historical Society
 * Post Office Box 786
 * Gilbert, Minnesota 55741
 * 218.749.3150


 * Website:ironrangehistoricalsociety.org


 * Follow us on Facebook


 * From the appearance of the photo it is definitely pre-1923, but if this is a problem, I can change the license to published without a copyright notice. This photo has been used in other publications. I will return to the University of Minnesota when time permits to check again for the source of the final photo. Sorry, Nikkimaria! DrGregMN (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is not when the photo was taken, but when it was published - both File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg and File:Elcor,_MN.jpg have tags based on pre-1923 publication, but if we can't demonstrate that we should use a different tag based on whatever publication (or non-publication) we can demonstrate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nikkimaria. I know the photo File:Elcor,_MN.jpg was used in the Elcor Reunion Book published in 1982 by the Elcor Reunion Committee without copyright: this is the earliest instance I am aware of its publication (it has appeared on other webpages since, but not Wikipedia). The Iron Range Historical Society was founded in 1973 and the original photograph was donated to them sometime prior to 1982, so I'm assuming a license of no copyright notice will suffice. To the best of my knowledge, File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg has never been published, so I am open to suggestion if the current license tag is inadequate.  The File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg will take some work.  If the original source cannot be found, what would you suggest? I would hate to delete the file from the article on a technicality. DrGregMN (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to the File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg, this was a donated photo from William Keller to the Iron Range Historical Society. This photo is edited from the original poloroid.  The date stamp on the side of the original poloroid is Mar 67 (this information is a part of the file). DrGregMN (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Nikkimaria! I have changed the licensing to the File:Elcor,_MN.jpg and the File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg to attribution. In reading the link http://www.uwyo.edu/ahc/_files/brochures/copyright.pdf, I realize that the photographer maintains copyright of even non-published, donated material even when deceased.  Fortunately, for both of these photos we know the donors and the Iron Range Historical Society granted permission to use these photos (https://www.ironrangehistoricalsociety.org/photographs) unless they are restricted by the donor, so they should be properly licensed now.  This is the way I have them captioned in the article as well.  The librarians at the University of Minnesota are back working on the source for File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg.  DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not sure I follow that line of reasoning - if the photographer maintains copyright, why would it matter whether the Society granted permission, since they're not the copyright holder? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * '''Sorry, I'm not following yours.
 * 1. If the deceased remain holders of the copyright even if the photos were never published, and
 * '''2. If the family of the deceased donated said photos to the organization (i.e. the Iron Range Historical Society), and
 * 3. If the Iron Range Historical Society grants permission to use the photos with acknowledgement
 * Does the attribution requirement not satisfy these requirements? I am frustrated and not sure what you are looking for with regard to the licensing of these images. I am trying to do the right thing.  You are being less than helpful. DrGregMN (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What you posted above was "the photographer maintains copyright of even non-published, donated material even when deceased" (my emphasis). If the copyright was not transferred to the Society with the physical photos, the Society does not have the authority to relicense them. In that case we would need to base our determination of copyright on the publication date (or whether it meets the requirements of PD-US-unpublished), not on what the Society says. Conversely, the attribution would be sufficient if the copyright was transferred to the Society along with the physical donation - do we know that? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I would have to check with the Iron Range Historical Society. I know when they receive a donation, the  item is tagged and numbered and documented describing the item(s) and person(s) who donated it.  I don't know if the print items, photographs or family histories they receive have the copyright transferred with them.  Bear with me, my first FAC, I'm learning as I go.
 * Per subsequent discussions with the nominator, believe images should now be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments
Welcome to FAC. I haven't done a complete review, but can offer a few points for your consideration:
 * The very brief lead looks too short to meet the requirement of WP:LEAD that it "should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." (my emphasis)
 * I will work on the lead to more effectively summarize the article later this weekend.
 * I have more effectively summarized the body of the article and added appropriate weight to the lead section. I put in a request for copy edit of the same.
 * Copy Editing of the lead section has been completed. Thank you, Jonesey95!


 * I note at least three paragraphs in the article that are ending with uncited statements
 * '''There are only two by my count, the first paragraph in the Establishment section, and the last paragraph in the Abandonment section. The reader need only go to the geographic coordinates to see the mine is now centered over Elcor's former location, but how to cite geographic coordinates? Is it necessary since they appear twice in the Infobox? I was unaware that the Elements of Style required the last sentences of all paragraphs to be cited. Comments from both Peer Review and GA article review stated that the article might be "over-cited".
 * The three instances to which I refer are:
 * First paragraph of the Establishment section. This can be resolved simply by shifting refs 20 to 24 to the end of the paragraph – although I'm sure you don't need all of them. The comments about overciting probably refer to your tendency, here and elsewhere, to multi-cite simple facts. One reliable source is generally enough in these instances.
 * I have started removing redundant citations, but this is by no means complete since it will take awhile to go through the entire article.
 * Last paragraph in the Abandonment section – but the sentence is redundant given the explanatory text that precedes it, so I'd simply drop it.
 * First paragraph of "Geography and climate" section, where only the first of the four sentences carries a citation.
 * Ahhh...got it! I forgot the copy editing had moved that section to the end of the article.
 * All have been corrected.


 * You'll find it's a well-established and now undeviating practice at FAC for paragraphs to end in citations. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Don H. Bacon's obsession with the letter M is largely trivia, and doesn't seem worthy of the amount of space you devote to it. The Bacon image, which I see has been queried above, adds little to the article and could, I believe, easily be dropped along with some of the adjoining text.
 * '''His penchant with "M" is important from the standpoint that some of the ships and streets of Elcor that he platted share the same names. The ships that are not directly relevant to the article could be deleted but the article would also lose some Wikilinks in the process.
 * I have reworded the section about Don H. Bacon, removing his photo (at least for now) and the names of the ships of the M fleet. It pained me to do this.  Although they were not directly relevant to the article, they did paint a nice picture of how the streets of Elcor got their names.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Brianboulton! DrGregMN (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, Brianboulton! I look forward to your next feed back.DrGregMN (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
I'm about halfway through the sources check, and have yet to do any spotchecks. What I've found so far: '''This reference was added by Sporkbot on 29 July 2014. Date published, date retrieved, date archived? Should the published date and retrieval date be the same? I didn't think bots made errors. I changed the retrieval date to the date that Sporkbot made the revision.'''
 * Inconsistency in retrieval date formats (e.g. ref 1)
 * The issue was the date formatting in this reference. I've changed it to be consistent with other references. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed for all references with page ranges DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Page ranges require dashes, not hyphens (ref 5)
 * Not quite all. Refs 5, 27 and 58 still have hyphens. Also, in page ranges the dash should not be surrounded by spaces, e.g. 75–76, not 75 – 76. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Page numbers need to be given for newspaper articles where there is no online link. See refs 6, 9, 15 and probably others
 * I have physical copies of all of the articles, but not necessarily the page numbers. This will require a trip to the Minnesota Historical Society to reference the microfiche.  Please be patient. This is my first FAC nomination, so I'm learning as I go.
 * All fixed for newspapers with no online link DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ref 11: In what medium was this interview published?
 * Typewritten transcript of an Oral History (there is another handwritten manuscript of an oral history cited in the article as well).
 * WP:PUBLISH states "All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people". You may have difficulty in arguing that typewritten or handwritten manuscripts fall within the definition of "published". Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot argue "published". I can argue "transcribed".  As for accessibility, one only needs to contact the Iron Range Historical Society for copies (or if one is feeling adventurous, travel there).

'''This is puzzling since it is not italicized in the citation template, but it is coming up italicized in the article. I tried reverting it. How to fix?'''
 * Ref 22: "Vintage Minnesota Hockey", being an online rather than a print source, should not be italicized.
 * Changed website to publisher in the citation link. Fixed. DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

'''Fixed for all references. These references have since been renumbered with the expansion of the lead section.''' DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC) '''I removed Angelfire as the website. The bottom of the page states Gary L. Gorsha, so I have to assume it's his webpage at Angelfire (but I removed his name as well). I added the Gilbert Herald as publisher (the Gilbert Herald does not have a website).''' Fixed DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Refs 26, 27 and 28: Retrieval dates missing
 * Ref 30: "Angelfire" is not a publisher, it's a build-your-own-website facility. In this case the article in question was originally published in 1983 by The Gilbert Herald
 * Ref 31: The publisher is evidently "State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources", not "Iron Range Tourism".
 * I'll start working on the rest. DrGregMN (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of three sentences, I have also removed redundant citations, limiting them to 1-3 refs per sentence.

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Brianboulton DrGregMN (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I was slightly confused by the changes in some of the ref numbers, but I'm checking out at the second column now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here we are:
 * Ref 40: is it  "Gilbert Herald", as here and ref 4, or "The Gilbert Herald", per 28? Consistency needed.
 * Fixed


 * Ref 49: I refer you to my comment on ref 11.
 * This is another transcript of an oral history from a former Elcor resident.
 * Then the problem is the same as with 11 – it's not a published source. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I followed the cite:interview template. So the problem with transcribed oral histories is not the fact that they exist, but that they've never been published?  This seems kind of harsh, especially when you consider that the oral histories are probably more accurate than the print sources.  I can delete the references and keep the text the same, but then some material would be unsourced (examples for the Phillipich/Torresani interview would be the town had a night watchman first before a full time patrolman; the fact the rent was never increased by Pickands Mather, and what people did and how people obtained supplies prior to the establishment of the Elcor mercantile.  All of the other Phillipich/Torresani citations have backup.  For the Sedgeman interview, he specifically mentions the location of the school on Malta street, something Van Brundt does not).  See my comment for reference 11 above.  A way compromise?


 * Ref 51: What is the nature of this source, i.e. in what form was it published?
 * Book format published by the Iron Range Historical Society for the Gilbert Centennial. The page cited talks about the history of the Saari Campbell and Kraker Mercantile.
 * We need the page reference. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done (page 15).


 * Ref 52: What makes this a reliable source?
 * This reference provides a list of names and dates of operation for every post office, past and present, in the U.S. (it also serves a resource for collectors looking for cancellation stamps from historical post offices, but this is not directly relevant to the article).
 * Reliability is not judged on the basis of content, but on who published it and in what circumstances. I can't judge whether Jim Forte postal history is reliable or not by FA standards; as this is the third citation of a simple fact, the easiest thing would be to delete it.
 * Done.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref 56: Should be reformatted, using the cite web template.
 * Fixed

That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, Brianboulton! DrGregMN (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it. The main sources point that still needs to be addressed is the use of unpublished sources in refs 11 and 49. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The transcribed oral histories have been deleted. This leaves some of the text unsourced, but most of the affected text still has back-up references. DrGregMN (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. This looks good, but you need to be sure that nothing significant is unsourced. Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "Elcor is a ghost town, or more properly, an extinct town" This sounds too colloquial and does not give the dates. Maybe "Elcor is a former town which existed between 1897 and 1956"
 * Fixed, but kept the term "ghost town".


 * "It was never a neighborhood proper of the city of Gilbert,[2] and the people of Elcor were only generally considered to be citizens of Gilbert." The first part is implied in the previous sentence, and the second is so vague it is unclear what it means. I would delete.
 * Compromised and clarified.


 * "platted" I have not come across this word before and it would be helpful to link to plat for non-US reaaders.
 * Fixed.


 * Some refs such as 9 and 30 have no link to the article. Is no online link available?
 * These newspaper references are so old as there is currently no online link. Per Brianboulton page numbers were added to these references since there is no online reference.


 * I agree with Brian that there is too much about the letter M. I would delete references to naming mines, steamers etc, which are not relevant, and also delete the list of streets, which is excessive detail.
 * This has already been reworked.


 * " and was usually classed with the McKinley district." I do not understand this.
 * Clarified.


 * The paragraph beginning "The Elba group of mines" is not relevant to this article. You might move it to a new article on Minnesota Iron Company.
 * Disagree. This paragraph provides a bridge from the community being platted by the Minnesota Iron Company to the ownership of Pickands Mather and Company, and refutes some misinformation about the community in other sources outside of Wikipedia; it is also outlined in the lead section.  I can, however, add a Wikilink to the Minnesota Iron Company, although such a page does not currently exist.


 * The 'Establishment' sub-section covers the whole history until abandonment. Maybe start a new 'Heyday' sub-section at "The community grew at the beginning of the century."
 * "The communication system between the different ethnicities and the respect they had for each other was remarkable." This is not WP:POV and is better revised or deleted.
 * Fixed.


 * "There was never any crime or trouble in Elcor." This is more rose-tinted hindsight. The town would not have had its own law enforcement if there was never any crime.
 * I don't agree that the presence of law enforcement implies criminal activity. This is cited in several sources, so I have to believe it's accurate.  Regardless, it has been removed.


 * "eighth grade" A link or explanation would be helpful for non-US readers.
 * Wikilinked.


 * "the rent did not increase until the homes were moved from Elcor in 1955." Are you saying that higher rents were charged after the houses were moved? If not, I would just say rents were never increased.
 * Fixed.


 * "The convenience of having a local store and post office was greatly appreciated by the town." This is colloquial and superfluous.
 * Fixed.


 * "Finally, the community was named "Elcor"" This implies that the town was named Elba for its first 23 years. If so, that should be stated in the lead and clarified here.
 * Fixed. Clarified in the lead section.  It is also hammered home in the first two paragraphs of the Establishment section.  I think the current paragraph in the body section is acceptable (In 1920...official U.S. post office began operation...much confusion in mail due to another town named Elba...finally the community was named Elcor).


 * "Mail was picked up twice daily, at 10:00 am and about 12:00 noon" This is excessive detail.
 * Fixed.


 * "Mining operations ceased." This is repetition.
 * Fixed.


 * "Sources differ on why the order was issued. Some recall the company wanting the land for a dump site. Others contended that the company no longer wanted to tend to the town's maintenance.[9] Still others thought the company decided it was not economical to own houses anymore.[56] No one in authority revealed what was to become of the land." This is again too colloquial in style.
 * Fixed. Hopefully more encyclopedic, less colloquial.


 * This is obviously a comprehensive account, although at times the detail is excessive. The main fault is the colloquial style and flattering comments, which at times reads more like a newspaper than an encyclopedia article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback, Dudley Miles! DrGregMN (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a few points where we do not agree, but I do not think they are important. The one issue you have not dealt with is that the 'Establishment' section covers the whole history until WWII. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Dudley Miles. I missed that one.  It's easy enough to fix, but I would like other reviewers to chime in before I do.  In examination of the other five featured ghost town articles, they are always divided by Boom/Bust or Establishment/Abandonment without a "Heyday" or "Peak" subsection.  I hope the other fixes are appropriate. Thank you again! DrGregMN (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Created new subsection "Peak Years". Thanks again, Dudley Miles! DrGregMN (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon
Interesting topic. Prose needs some work though. My first comments below: More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At its peak, -> when was that?
 * It's peak population of 1,000 occurred after World War I with the Elcor Mercantile and U.S. Post Office being established in 1920. I have added this to the lead section.
 * Sparta[20][21][22][23] -> not sure why a minor point needs 4 refs. One suffices. Same problem for quite a few other sentences.
 * Eliminated redundant citations.
 * The community was first called "Elba" -> repetition of "The town was originally known as Elba" a few lines earlier
 * Deleted paragraph
 * opened a few years later. -> since no year is mentioned in this sentence, not sure what later is
 * Deleted paragraph
 * The history of Elcor dates back to 1897, when the Elba mine was put into operation -> again? Do we need this miniparagraph at all?
 * Deleted paragraph
 * it was called the M fleet -> what is "it" referring to?
 * The ships and barges of the Minnesota Steamship Company, which was vertically integrated with the Minnesota Iron Company. This is explained in the following sentence.  It gives important insight into the thinking of Don H. Bacon.
 * listing the street names line by line is giving unnecessary emphasis, I think, but maybe other reviewers find it fine
 * Only one other reviewer has questioned this; other reviewers have not had an issue. I would like it to remain; again, it provides insight about the man Don H. Bacon.
 * The Elba group of mines ... and was usually classed with the McKinley district mines, which included the Elba and Corsica mines -> Elba double
 * This clarification was added at the request of reviewer Dudley Miles. Previously this sentence read "usually classed with the McKinley district."
 * after that date. -> is the reader supposed to know when the USSC got formed? Bit of a stretch
 * Date specified
 * Was Jay Morse also an owner?
 * Yes. I think this sentence reads fine.
 * Chinn was then on his way up in mining circles, becoming -> a "later" or "ultimately" or something would be good, otherwise becoming could be seen as referring to the "then"
 * gave becoming the adverb "ultimately"
 * L. C. David when was (s)he appointed?
 * 1918, after Chinn became GM of all Pickands Mather mining properties in the Lake Superior region. The date is specified in the preceding sentence.  I combined these sentences which hopefully provide the necessary clarification.
 * The Oliver Iron Mining Company also owned -> not sure about the "also"
 * The Oliver Iron Mining Company also owned properties named "Elba" apart from Pickands Mather. This is one of the more important sentences in the article since there is a lot of confusion among some Iron Range historians as to whether the Elcor mining properties were owned by Pickands Mather or the Oliver Mining Company.  It provides this distinction.
 * but these were entirely different -> where were they located?
 * That is a very good question, one I do not have an answer to at this writing. In reviewing the source (Van Brundt), it does not specify.  I could research the answer, but is the information necessary to the article?


 * fronted by a four-board-high fence which was fronted -> fronted twice
 * fixed.
 * "Corsica" was attempted with the same result -> would be nice to give the same level of detail here as with Elba
 * There is no further detail in the source (Lamppa).
 * was named -> is anything known about who had the idea? Or anything about the naming process?
 * In all of the information I've managed to acquire, I have not come across anything regarding the naming process or the particular individual that came up with the name "Elcor".
 * whose record ->I think only in informal language can whose refer to a place. I would think not on WP.
 * Can you clarify this critique? I cannot seem to find what you are looking at...
 * Never mind. Fixed.  DrGregMN (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Edwininlondon! DrGregMN (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Edwininlondon! Just wanted to quickly acknowledge your critiques and recommendations.  I have been on holiday for the last week here in the United States and will hopefully begin work on these items later today. DrGregMN (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking much better. I give my support on prose.Edwininlondon (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

 * I think the "Geology" section should come first in the article, followed by "Geography and climate". They chronologically precede the founding and history of Elcor. I see that earlier versions of the article arranged the sections as I'm suggesting.
 * The Geology section was originally placed at the beginning of the article, but it was the consensus of the Wikipedia guild of copy editors that it be placed here.
 * OK. Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Geology
 * ¶1 "...with pockets of high-grade ore..." – Link ore and explain what is meant by "high-grade"?
 * Clarified with reference and linked
 * ¶1 "... sediment deposited during the Precambrian era on the bottom of the Animikie Sea." – Since the Precambrian covers such a huge chunk of time, it would be better to narrow this and give a date range, if you can find a reliable source for these details. Judging by the Animikie Sea article, it looks like Proterozoic Eon might be correct.
 * Clarified as best as possible with reference
 * ¶1 "...a part of the Biwabik iron formation. The Biwabik iron formation...". Recast to eliminate the back-to-back repetition of "Biwabik iron formation"?
 * Earlier versions of the article combined these two sentences reading "...Biwabik iron formation, a large sheet of iron bearing sediment..." The Wikipedia guild of copy editors broke this into two separate sentences.
 * Could we trim the second instance, perhaps, to "The formation..."? Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. DrGregMN (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶1 "This iron-bearing rock extends under Lake Superior from the Mesabi and Vermilion Iron Ranges, to the Gogebic Iron Range from northern Wisconsin into the Marquette Range of the upper peninsula of Michigan, and west to the manganese-rich ore of the Cuyuna Iron Range." – This would be more clear if you specified the state or states for each range; e.g., the Mesabi and Vermilion of northeast Minnesota; the Cuyuna Iron Range, southwest of the Mesabi in Minnesota, etc.
 * Fixed
 * ¶1 "Michigan's steel-blue high grade ores were quite different from the Mesabi ore, which was soft brown hematite." – What did the Michigan ore consist of if not hematite? What made it blue?
 * Clarified
 * ¶2 "The slate is from 50 to several hundred feet thick, and the four iron-bearing layers are from 400 to 600 feet thick." – Give in metric too? Ditto for other imperial (pounds, miles, etc.) quantities in the article.
 * Fixed
 * How many feet of overburden (slate, gabbro, or anything else) lay above the iron ore? It's not clear from the article that slate was the only thing the miners had to dig through to get to the iron.
 * Expounded this sentence with regard to overburden. The slate is just below topsoil.
 * It would be good to explain where the iron came from. Why was it deposited in such density in the Proterozoic and not before or after and why here?
 * Clarified as best as possible with reference, but should probably have copy editing look at this section again. I will put in a request.
 * The geology section looks much better. I made a few copyedits as I went; please revert any you think are misguided. I have a further question about the following two sentences: "The four main divisions, from the top down, are the Upper Slaty, Upper Cherty, Lower Slaty and Lower Cherty. Below these are quartzite and granite, and Virginia Slate and Duluth gabbro lie above." It's not instantly clear where the slate and gabbro are. If they lie above the iron-bearing layers, it would make sense to begin with them and then name the four iron-bearing layers and then the quartzite and granite so that the reader can imagine this stacked from top to bottom in a stratigraphic column. Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. DrGregMN (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Geography and climate
 * Add a paragraph here about Elcor's geographic location, including county, state, and part of state; name(s) of nearby town(s), distance from the nearest large city. Give the elevation, listed here. Mention the nearest highway(s).
 * Done, with reference
 * ¶1 "Normal annual temperatures...". – Maybe "average" rather than "normal"?
 * Fixed
 * Since you mention horse-drawn plows in the Peak years section, I would add snowfall info to the climate paragraphs. Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, with reference
 * Thank you, Finetooth! DrGregMN (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The geography and climate section looks fine to me now. I merged two gnis citations and added the elevation, using the same citation, to the infobox. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good, and I'm leaning toward support, but I have just a few more comments or suggestions.
 * General
 * Usually the image credits such as "(State Archives, Minnesota Historical Society)" appear only on the licensing page for each image and are not included in the captions.
 * Fixed
 * From each of the captions, I'd delete "Minnesota" from "Elcor, Minnesota". No one will be confused by plain "Elcor".
 * Fixed
 * Although not required for FA, concise alt text for each image would be nice. See WP:ALT for details.
 * Done
 * The article has no dead URLs and no disambiguation problems and no duplinks.
 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, Finetooth DrGregMN (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Switching to support on prose.

Closing comment: There is no need to hold up promotion over this, but I notice that several of the references are not listed in ascending numerical order (e.g. "the name "Elcor" was chosen later, by combining the first syllable of the name of each mine.[17][6][18]", instead of [6],[17],[18]); I know that some editors prefer to list the references in order of relevance, so I have left them as they are but I just wanted to draw attention to it in case it was a mistake. Sarastro (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.