Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana/archive1


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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:21, 26 June 2009.

List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana

 * Nominator(s): Reywas92 Talk  18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This list was really interesting to make. It's based off the FL List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama with some additions. The article is fully referenced and complete. There's differing information about each of the 37 sites, so tell me if any descriptions are too long or short. I'm sorry that a few images are missing, but I searched Commons, Flickr, Google, and NPS and couldn't find anything free. Reywas92 Talk 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment — Chris!  c t 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Image: What up with the black edge? It looks very ugly IMO. Can you fix the image? Or ask the uploader to do that?
 * "National Historic Landmark program": shouldn't program be capitalized like on their site?
 * Done for the caps. Now that you've pointed it out I agree that the border doesn't look the best, but unfortunately it's part of the image itself and fixing it may mess up the coordinates system. Here's the image and the template that make it work, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Anyway, all the state locator maps have it. Reywas92 Talk  20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the image history on File:Indiana Locator Map with US.PNG, the first version the uploader uploaded is without black border. I don't know why he uploaded the second version. I can certainly revert back to the previous, but like you said, I don't want to mess up the coordinates. Can you ask Appraiser the uploader about that?— Chris!  c t 20:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's inactive . I don't think it's that bad though, especially if it's consistent for all 50 states. Reywas92 Talk  22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - while the border is affecting the visual appeal IMO, I can't deny that this is a great list, hence my support— Chris!  c t 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support A great list. I don't find the border on the image to be a problem. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support Other than that, nice work.  The Le ft ori um  17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Footnotes should be located right after a punctuation mark. There are spaces between the period and the footnote at several places in the table. After this sentence for example, "The Plaza also includes the American Legion headquarters, Cenotaph square, an obelisk, and fountains. [22]"
 * Should there not be a period after this sentence, "It is now the home of the Quilters Hall of Fame"?
 * Both done. Thanks. Reywas92 Talk  20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. Reywas92 Talk  22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I read the list with a great interest and found no problems. Therefore I am supporting. Ruslik_ Zero 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment If you're still missing some photos that you're unable to take youself (Dont you live in Indiana? road trip!), I've found looking at other articles with photos in the same county can identify people who have no problem stopping by someplace for you. In Virginia, I left notes on I think 4 peoples talk pages and got all the photos I wanted. dm (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * " represent a broad sweep of Indiana's history from the Native American era, through Indiana's early settlers and motor racing." "a broad sweep" is not necessary.
 * Done. I'll remove it from the AL list as well.
 * "and an array of other topics"-->and several other topics
 * Done
 * " which are historic properties "
 * Done
 * Why is there no symbol for National Historic Landmarks?
 * Is it really necessary? Readers should be able to tell all are regular NHLs unless it does have a symbol, i.e. the symbol is that is has no symbol. It could just as easily be all white except for the few different ones, only needing color and symbol for them.
 * Allen County Courthouse needs a period at the end of its description.
 * Done
 * "and it was a military "
 * Done
 * "It made uniforms for the Union during the Civil War." The Mill itself did not make uniforms.
 * Changed to Its workers
 * "continuously-operating " I think we've covered this before, but the hyphen after -ly adverbs is redundant.
 * Done
 * "The 16th President Abraham Lincoln" Don't assume that readers will automatically think "U.S." president.
 * Done with link
 * "a manufacturing company producing hair care products"-->a manufacturing company that produced hair care products
 * Done
 * "The building was finished in 1927 and also served as a community cultural center. "-->Finished in 1927, the building also served as a community cultural center. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done

Sources
 * Web site titles should not be in all caps, even if they were like that in the original.
 * I think that's for when the website uses caps stylistically as a header. These, in contrast to the others, are in caps on purpose; the other uses of the name on the webpage are also in caps.
 * Ref 5, the link to National Monument (United States) doesn't work. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks! Reywas92 Talk  16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from  You've done a great job developing this list-article from the version of June 30, 2008, at completion of a WikiProject NRHP drive to create complete NHL lists and to start an article for each separate NHL. My comments and questions:
 * Could the NHL blue color be used to color the top bar containing the column headings? This would be consistent with identifying the table as a table of NHL listings.  This table is one in a system of more than 50 list-tables of NHLs and more than 3,000 list-tables of NRHPs, in which the coded NHL and NRHP colors signify which type of table it is.  This is not an issue for a reader focused on just one article, it is an enhancement for readers who might browse in multiple articles.
 * I happy with adding color, but it was opposed in the FLC for the Alabama list.
 * I suppose I will raise it separately somewhere. It should not delay the promotion of this article. doncram (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In Indiana, the 37 NHL listings are among the most highly recognized historic sites to be designated by the U.S. Federal government. In recent years, these ones were all decreed by judgment of the Secretary of the Interior;  there may be a few decreed by Congress early in the NHL program.  There are just two comparable others:  George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, which are National Park Service areas that were designated by Congress.  These two are listed on page 114 in the National Historic Landmarks document that is the first source given in this list-article.  Could these also be mentioned in the article?  Also, it would be helpful to readers to include coordinates for them so that the Google/Bing map link will allow readers to see the locations of all the most important historic sites designated by the Federal government, in one place.
 * Those are not National Historic Landmarks. Wasn't the inclusion of those part of the reason the New York list failed its FLC? And the Lincoln Boyhood Memorial is already an NHL anyway. A Historical Park is not the same as a Historic Landmark. Indiana doesn't have one yet, but most states have an article for Protected Areas, which would include this. I wouldn't oppose a see also or a mention in the lead, but these do not belong in an NHL list. Reywas92 Talk  16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say why the NYS NHL list failed. These are not protected areas, which is an IUCN international term for natural, rather than historic areas.  I'll add mentions of them to the article.  They are of likely interest to readers. doncram (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely nice work. doncram (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by 
 * Lead
 * I'm not sure the map works or is necessary. At the moment, it's cluttered because of the amount of text that's necessary and the link to google and bing in the key section performs the same task.
 * Works great for me and doen't seem too cluttered. Many of these lists have these now. Surely people would rather have a clickable map right there rather than a link to another page.
 * It's not a deal breaker for me, but be aware that while it may look fine for some screen resolutions or browsers, it might not for all of them. For me, it just looks too cluttered and it's not always clear which text belongs to which dot. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "One of the NHLs in the state has military significance, fourteen are significant examples of a particular architectural style, nine are associated with significant historical figures, and one is an archaeological site". This only covers 25 of the state's NHLs, what are the others?
 * Why would they all have to be there? The rest don't have much in common with the others so I'd be listing those three main topics plus many with only one or two.
 * I suppose they wouldn't but it does rather feel like they're forgotten. I think a sentence to the effect that the remaining sites are listed for a variety of different reasons would address this. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "...a particular architectural style..." what is the particular style?
 * All of them! It's a general term. For the Allen County Courthouse it's Beaux Arts, and for the Auburn Factory it's Art Deco. First Baptist Church and First Christian Church are modern, Thomas Gaff House is Italian Rennaisance, the Lanier Mansion is Greek Revival, etc.
 * The way its phrased, it sounds like they're all examples of the same unnamed style. How about "fourteen are significant examples of different architectural styles", or something to that effect? Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Both public and privately owned properties are designated as NHLs". This comes in an explanation of how NHLs are listed, if the situation is theoretical shouldn't "are" be changed to "can be"?
 * Done.
 * "All NHLs are also included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), historic properties that the National Park Service deems to be worthy of preservation". This sentence doesn't seem to flow well, it feels like a word missing.
 * Dabomb above suggested to remove "which are", though I do see what you mean. Any suggestions?
 * How about "All NHLs are also included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a list of historic properties that the National Park Service deems to be worthy of preservation" (my text in italics) as it describes the list and (although Dabomb didn't provide a reason) "which are" doesn't quite fit as it seems to be describing the buildings on the list. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The table
 * The first column is a list of numbers and I don't think the explanation in the footnotes is enough. "Numbers represent an ordering by significant words". What significant words? What does this mean to the reader?
 * Added alphbetical. I think that's how all the NHL lists have it though. It doesn't mean anything, just that the Lew Wallace Study is listed under Wallace, Lew.
 * Ok, I see. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source used for Angel Mounds makes no mention of the site being a regional centre, and while the site flourished from 1000 to 1600 the phrasing is ambiguous and the settlement could have existed longer. More sources are required.
 * The source for Auburn Cord Duesenberg Automobile Facility states "one of the few remaining examples of an independent specialty automobile company that made hand-assembled rather than mass-produced automobiles" (emphasis added), however the article says "It was one of the few automobile companies that made hand-assembled rather than mass-produced automobiles". Either a source needs to be found for the statement, or it needs to be changed.
 * I don't see much of a difference, I just changed it to not be word-for-word. I've added "remaining".
 * I'm afraid the word remaining makes all the difference. Remaining refers to the present, and does not necessarily mean there were few companies that hand-assembled cars in the past (although "rather than" does imply it, it's not strong enough". I appreciate that when you're working from such brief sources it's difficult to rephrase the information without changing the meaning, which is why I think more sources should be used to make both jobs easier. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From the Joseph Bailly Homestead entry: "...when the Calumet was opened to white settlement". This statement is not covered by the source and Calumet should be wikilinked.
 * Linked
 * Although the Broad Ripple Park Carousel entry states it was built in 1917, the source claims it was brought to Indiana in 1917 rather than built.
 * Changed
 * In the Butler Fieldhouse I'm surprised to see that there's no construction date, but also information such as "It hosted the Indiana high school basketball tournament until 1971 and was a military barracks during World War II" cannot be found in the source provided.
 * The following sentence leaves me slightly confused: "It was innovative by designing utility and aesthetics". How can one design utility? And although sourced, I take issue with the statement that using steam power was innovative; Boulton and Watt was founded in the late 18th century and Murrays' Mills, once one of the largest cotton-spinning companies in the world, was using steam power since the start of the 19th century. Also from the Cannelton Cotton Mill entry, the statement "Its workers made uniforms for the Union during the Civil War" is not supported by the source provided.
 * Maybe it was innovative for the United States, or was in a different way. I don't wan to challenge the source.
 * Ok, I've struck my comment about steam power being innovative as it probably constitutes WP:SYNTH. I meant it as an off-hand comment anyway rather than a serious suggestion to change the article; wikipedia's policy is verifiability before truth and while this sometimes leads to problems more often than not it works. (Although the source probably meant that steam power was innovation for America and I'd like to see a source if at all possible). Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source for Levi Coffin House states "From 1827 to 1847, this two story brick house served as the "Union Depot of the Underground Railroad" which is different from "Levi Coffin lived in this house from 1827 to 1847" as stated in the article.
 * What's the problem? It's not hard to see that it was the Union Depot only while Coffin lived there. The source says "during that period".
 * You're right, the source says that Coffin helped slaves escape from 1827 to 1847, however it says nothing about him living there only that he was the owner. He could have lived there from 1798 to 1877, or may not have lived there at all and only used the property to help slaves escape. The source is silent on the point and another reference needs to be found. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The source for Eugene V. Debs Home states "From 1890 until his death, this two story frame building was the home of Eugene Victor Debs"; the source does not mention the construction date so the statement "[Eugene Debs] lived in this home from its construction in 1890 until his death in 1926" isn't sourced.
 * What was the purpose of the Donald B? It may be a towboat, but what did it tow?
 * Bigger boats like barges, like the article says.
 * When did Eleutherian College become "the first college in Indiana to admit students regardless of race or gender"?
 * I suppose when it was founded. I have found nothing specifying the year of that.
 * I'd be surprised if it offered equal opportunities since it's foundation. I think a note of when it adopted a policy to admit students regardless of race or sex is relevant, although others may disagree. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the Benjamin Harrison Home, there's no mention in the source of Italiante design and while it says "Harrison accepted the Republican Party's nomination for the Presidency in this home in 1888" it does not say he conducted his campaign there.
 * Apart from being the headquarters of the American Legion, the source provided does not include most of the facts in the description column.
 * The seating capacity of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is not referenced.
 * The source for Irwin Union Bank and Trust mentions nothing of being "welcoming".
 * Lanier Mansion should mention when it was built, and the source says nothing of how strict the adherence to Greek Revivalism was or about the doors.
 * The source used for Lincoln Boyhood Home states "Abraham Lincoln's family lived in southern Indiana from 1816 to 1830", which does not necessarily mean he grew up in this particular house, a less ambiguous source needs to be found. Also, the source mentions nothing about the replica cabin.
 * Well, he did. I think this ref is fine.
 * It's not fine as it doesn't support the information stated in the article. If Lincoln did grow up there from 1816 to 1830 it should be easy to find another source stating it. Also, the bit about the replica needs to be sourced. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have only inspected the entries for 21 out of the 37 sites, but I think it's enough to highlight the problem this list suffers from. The sourcing is a serious concern for me at this point. While the list appears to have been well researched, it's disappointing that the sources which were probably used are not all listed. There's a lot of work to be done here. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * General
 * IIRC National Monuments can be natural, can NHLs? If not, I think having a column for when each NHL was constructed would be useful to the reader.
 * If it's historic I guess they can. I'd rather just give it in the description to be more consistent
 * The information can be repeated in the description section and a date column and no harm would be done. I think a date column would benefit the reader as the sites could be sorted into chronological order. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Last minute comment: No, National Historic Landmarks are just that, there are not two tracks for natural vs. historic. Yes, National Monuments can be historic (in which case they get listed in the National Register of Historic Places), or they may be natural only.  The sortable date column in the list-article is for NHL designation date.  It would be hard / impossible to identify date of construction for all NHLs.  The NRHP database which includes all of these has a "date built" field which is used to give date built, where relevant and known, like for a house.  But it is used for date of significance in other cases, like the year of birth of a U.S. president, in a house that was built years earlier.  Some NHLs are archeological sites where the significant date is 500 A.D.-700 A.D. or whatever.  So, date column for date built would not be helpful. doncram (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Last minute comment: About sourcing, I would prefer for this to be understood and presented as a list of summaries of other wikipedia articles, with footnote references provided for only unusual assertions. In the FA nomination of the List of NHLs in NY, that seemed to be accepted by FA reviewers.  The description column there had a footnote in the header row, explaining that sources were to be found in the corresponding articles.  Specifically, the footnote was this . Reference
 * That reference covers all of the brief, not very useful NPS NHL webpages, and sources which are in the individual NHL list-articles. This was explicitly discussed in the NYS NHL list-article's FA review.  The list-article was not promoted, but I understood that was for other reasons.  I also understand that allowing this kind of presentation could be an exception for FA practices, and worth a larger RFC type discussion.  Note that as a list of historic sites, all the historic sites articles are non-controversial, fully accepted as being wikipedia-notable, and are very stable (sources are not being added and subtracted, and there is no controversy in any individual NHL article).  The FA exception could be written or understood to be very narrow, to cover only NHL-type list-articles where these characteristics apply.  However, I think this Indiana NHL list-article could be accepted, as is, now, with a general sources footnote like that and with a qualifier in the FA promotion to the effect that its promotion would be reversed if a general RFC type discussion later settles to a different consensus.  (I am assuming every fact in the descriptions here is supported by sources in the corresponding articles.) Update: Just looking at the first corresponding article, i see it does not include inline citations and is effectively unsourced, so the articles cannot currently serve as the sources for this list-article.
 * This Indiana list-article is a great work, clearly to me within the set of wikipedia's best work. I am entirely a stickler about there being adequate, explicit sourcing for wikipedia articles;  what is at stake here is whether our style decision should be to include excessive footnotes that no one will read, and are off-putting, in an otherwise great index-type article whose every fact is supported by sources in the articles that it indexes.  The NYS list-article would require hundreds of useless footnotes, of no benefit in my view.  Again, if there is a really unusual assertion, it could/should be sourced within the article. doncram (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I realise the nomination is closed but I think I should reply to these comments. First of all, I didn't see the FLC for list of National Historic Landmarks in New York and if I had I would have opposed for the reasons I have here. I disagree that it's enough to have the individual articles sourced. All the sources used in a list or article should be included; deferring to other wikipedia articles is not good enough as they may changed so that they no longer include the relevant information or sources. The individual articles should be sourced, but so should the list. You say that the web sources provided cover "all of the brief, not very useful NPS NHL webpages", well I didn't see any links in those articles to more information. The information should be immediately to hand so that the reader doesn't have to trawl through the website searching for it. Especially when someone else has gone to the effort of doing it for them in the article. As for off putting, really? Two or three references is that much more intimidating than one? The reference section is at the end of the article so isn't that off putting.
 * I'm fully aware that some of the sites are archaeological sites, but sorting by date would still be useful. It's also easy to do: for example, to make sure 500 doesn't come after 1973, or that 17th century comes before 1750, just add number before the date; then put the numbers into ascending order and it will sort fine. This is a good list, a lot of work has gone into it and it's a credit to Reywas, but I still think it needs more to be ready for FL status.
 * If this is the inappropriate place to continue this discussion because the nomination is closed I will happily continue it on whatever talk page seems best. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be continued elsewhere. doncram (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the National Park Service pages on these have very little information. I used as much from them as I could and took the rest from the articles. It's just not consistent to have lots of different refs for one but only the NPS link for another. I'll see what I can change in the descriptions, but I don't want to have multiple inconsistent sources for each. Reywas92 Talk  22:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Last minute comment: Yes, those NPS summary NHL webpages are very inadequate. They are in fact summaries, in at least a few cases with errors of interpretation introduced in the summarizing, from the detailed, reliable, well-referenced NRHP/NHL application documents that have authors, dates, and are reliable sources written by architectural historians and other experts, sometimes on NPS staff and sometimes contracted out to other experts by owners of nominated properties.  About the NPS summary NHL webpages, it is nonetheless useful to include reference to them in individual NHL articles in order to document the date of NHL designation, and they have been added to every individual Indiana NHL article. doncram (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with having multiple sources, in fact it's good academic practice. Take a look at list of castles in Cheshire, where most entries have several sources. There's no need to worry about a situation where one entry has, for example, four sources and another just one, for some one source is enough. In some instances, important information is missing and I don't think information should be removed from the article, but more sources added. The NHL database is not the be all and end all. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found further information for all of them from the NPS that I can link to with much more information than those darn summary listings. That'll take me quite a while though.  Reywas92 Talk  22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Last minute comment: That link is pointing to an unlabelled directory listing many of the NHL/NRHP application documents available at NPS's NPS Focus system. The main search index for those documents is this [NPS Focus search screen. In New York State, I ensured that the NHL/NRHP application was included as a reference in each one of the individual NHL articles.  That could/should be done for all the Indiana articles (the NHL/NRHP application has been scanned and is online in the NPS Focus system for almost all NHLs).  In an NHL article development campaign that finished on July 4, 2008, I and others ensured that at least the NPS summary NHL webpage was included as a reference in each NHL article, but it was not then practical to add the NHL/NRHP application as part of that campaign.  I, and I am sure others, would help add NHL/NRHP applications to each of the Indiana NHL articles as part of a new Indiana-specific cleanup campaign, to support promotion of this list-article to FA.  I oppose adding all of the same references to this list-article, as that would be excessive and not beneficial to readers.  And most of the NHL summary NHL references should be dropped from here, in my view, with just the general sources note refering to the top-level NPS index of the NHL webpages provided, instead. [[User:Doncram|doncram]] (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ok, there's no deadline and the important thing is to ensure the list is of a high standard. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Last minute comment: But there are multiple sources, they are just in the articles that this list-article indexes! doncram (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will be leaving Monday for Alaska for two weeks and don't have the time to add in those other refs. Anyway, I'm a good lister and want to make sure those links are also in the 37 listed articles. Therefore I withdraw this nom and will bring it back later. Reywas92 Talk 22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the way to proceed would be to ensure that, here, the only information included is that which stated and fully sourced in the 37 indexed articles! And the review here should focus on verifying that, which is a feasible and practical exercise, rather than focusing on gathering and checking all the sources that are in the indexed articles, and perhaps adding other sources not in those indexed articles (which I would not want to see, I would want to ensure those new sources are put into the indexed articles, first). doncram (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.