Wikipedia:Peer review/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive2

===List of National Historic Landmarks in New York===
 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this list-article for peer review to prepare it for resubmission to Featured Article status. The article was peer reviewed before, and I believed it was ready for Featured List status but its nomination failed. A critic there commented that there were numerous problems, but did not detail them all. I am hoping that this forum will provide for a semi-formal review and discussion of the issues that the critic expressed or did not yet express, and that this would also provide for other improvements to the list-article. Thanks in advance, doncram (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive2.


 * Comment Despite being loaded with notes, most of the prose is unsourced. Can that be fixed somehow? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The notes column is supported by footnote at top of column, referring to the NHL summary webpages that are available for each one of the NHLs. If there is an unusual assertion that is likely to be questioned within one of the notes, then I agree it should be more specifically footnoted.  But I don't think that, for example, "Home of Susan B. Anthony, prominent 19th century women's rights activist" should be considered controversial, in describing Susan B. Anthony House.  Are there any assertions in particular that you feel should be sourced more specifically? doncram (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment (there may be others later). I continue to have content concerns related to the inclusion of "other national-class historic landmarks designated by the U.S. government". The assertion that NPS-managed sites with historical relevance are "national-class historic landmarks" is reasonable on its face, but appears to be nothing more than original research at its root. Moreover, I think it could be argued that some of the NPS historic sites might not actually qualify as National Historic Landmarks. Consider that the criteria for accepting sites into the NPS system are not fixed over time, and some sites may have entered the system because of politics or because they were donated. Furthermore, considering the specific NPS sites listed in the article, I think it likely that a few of them would not meet the criteria of being "nationally significant in American history and culture." Grant's Tomb is important as a National Memorial, but did anything nationally significant happen there? Does the Vanderbilt Mansion have national significance? What about Theodore Roosevelt's birthplace or Eleanor Roosevelt's house?

Bottom line: I'd feel much better about this list if the non-NHL sites were covered in a separate article about NPS sites in New York (see List of National Park System areas in Maryland) that was linked from this article. Identify them here, but don't list them in a manner that makes it appear they are NHLs. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I second this comment; I think it makes the list confusing, especially when the fully-capitalized term is used in the list title. Certainly the NHSes, NMs and other sites could have their own, shorter list. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Maryland example is interesting, and it is certainly reasonable to create a List of National Park System areas in New York new article, as there are enough NPS areas in at least these two states to justify having separate articles about them. Indeed I'll start and/or contribute to that new article.  But, that is a different type of article that will cover a mix of historically-oriented and non-historical NPS areas.  It is still reasonable in the MD and NY list-articles of NHLs, to include mention of the NPS areas that are the historical ones.  This is not original research.  Again, note the historically-oriented areas are identified by the National Park Service in its official list of National Historic Landmarks, and only these are included in the 2nd table in this List of NHLs in NY article.  I don't believe it is misleading or confusing to include them.  They are certainly not presented in a way to make them appear as NHLs, it is very clear in the article that they are not.  They are in a separate table, not mixed in among the NHLs.  And, in terms of the article title, it is not misleading to call it a List of National Historic Landmarks in New York.  It certainly is that;  with the New York City sublist it includes every single one of them.  It also includes other nationally designated historic sites of high or higher importance, which is a bonus for any readers specializing in formally designated NHLs-only and which is expected, implicitly, by many more likely readers interested in the most important historic sites in New York.


 * The main principle involved, for me, is that I want to describe historic sites in a given area, of a certain level of designation and above, to serve readers. There is a rough but real hierarchy of designations out there, from local to state to Federal designations, and within Federal from NRHP to NHL to higher designations.  It has been bared in previous wp:NRHP discussion about Independence Hall and other sites that are NPS areas but not NHLs, that NHLs are "ranked lower" and do not include some of the most important historic landmarks in the nation that happen to be previously protected by Federal government purchase and presented as NPS areas.  It was troubling to some wp:NRHP readers that a sanitary landfill in Fresno is designated an NHL, while Independence Hall is not.  The resolution was that in general the NPS areas are "higher ranked" already.  All of the NY ones are pretty clearly of higher importance than most NHLs;  if they weren't important the Federal government would not open them to the public and staff them with park rangers.  An extreme comparison: Eleanor Roosevelt's house vs. the erroneous NHL for Florence Mills House.  I notice with interest that in User:Cbl62's development of List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the San Fernando Valley, he wishes to include mention of all the NRHP sites (most but not all of which are also LA HCMs).  I think the non LA HCM ones can be mentioned, explicitly listed, and made into a separate table, all without causing any confusion.  His and my interest is the same, we are trying to serve readers.  In each narrower geographic area list that covers a lower level of designation, we want to restate the relatively few higher designated historic sites that appear in the area.  This is a general issue that will reappear in other historic site list-articles.  I don't think it is required or desirable to prohibit mention of higher-designated sites.


 * Another consideration is that I'd prefer a featured list article model that works for other states, where there are very few NPS areas which would not justify having a separate list-article. Would you oppose mentioning one or two historically-oriented NPS areas, in another state's list of NHLs article?  Would you actually oppose putting in a thumbnail pic and brief discussion there?  Where and how would you draw the line to allow it there but prohibit it here?  doncram (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that Orlady prefaces an overall preference to exclude the non-NHL NPS areas based on Orlady's perception that the NPS areas may be less important. I want to respond to that.  Browsing, it seems to me that Theodore Roosevelt's Birthplace may be the weakest of the historical NPS areas as it is no longer the fashion to commemorate birthplaces, the original was destroyed in 1916, and it is presented that the home was donated (which could be viewed as a sign of weakness).  I have never visited it.  However, the rebuilt mansion has been a museum since 1923, and has itself had an effect on many thousands of visitors.  Speculating, it could be important in house museum history.  And the Statue of Liberty, a really rather strong entry on the historical NPS nonNHLs, and probably many others were donated, too.  It's not important how the NPS got their hands on a property;  I imagine the main costs are the perpetual obligations of maintenance and active presentation.  And the birthplace far outranks many of the NHLs in the state.  The worst historically in my view is the Florence Mills House NHL which protected the wrong house, following a typo in one of the obituaries for Mills.  Both correct and incorrect houses have been demolished, and there is not even a plaque, much less interpretation.  I haven't been to Teddy's birthplace, but I assume they have history to present on the tour.  As for the others Orlady mentions:


 * Grant was immensely popular following the Civil War and lived in New York City. Grant's Tomb was and even still is, to a lesser extent, a famous attraction.  I believe i read it was visited by millions and millions, and was included on the grand tours of Europeans visiting America.  Although, like birthplaces, gravesites and tombs are not now in fashion as historical artifacts, this one is far more important than NYS NYL John Brown Farm and Gravesite which is relatively unknown and rarely visited.
 * Eleanor Roosevelt's home is quite important. I read a biography of her and her life there with the women she shared it with played a large role in supporting her in her world-stage roles (roles including eventually, her committee leadership creating the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was an amazing accomplishment).  She was individually a far more important VIP than most of the NYS NHL commemorated persons, and her life is intimately associated with the house.
 * The Vanderbilt Mansion is an outstanding Gilded Age home, that I think Daniel would agree is more important than the average of many List of NHLs in RI mansions in Newport, Rhode Island, or other mansions in NY. It was protected as a NPS area since 1940, already.
 * The list-article is not meant as a travel guide, but I imagine that reader satisfaction from visiting the NPS areas will be far higher than their visits to often unmarked, relatively obscure NHLs such as Mills House and others like Roscoe Conkling House where it has been hard for the wikipedia photographers to find them at all. Overall, the fact is that the Federal government got actively involved in securing the historic NPS areas on average far before the NHL program started.  The continuing facts of the large Federal investment in presenting them, and the cumulative impact they have on people who have visited them, speaks enormously to the historical importance of these sites.  Adding a local or state or mere NHL marker would not add to what is already there, fully protected and interpreted.  Overall, the average importance of the 20 historical NPSs in the state, or the 13 non-NHL ones among those, is far higher than the average for NHLs in the state.  Although I and other wp:NRHPers have worked at burnishing the NHL articles and lists in the last year, the NPS area articles created by wp:Protected Areas people a few years ago will clean up nicely when we get to them, I predict.  They do need to be fixed up.  However, those editors got their List of NPS areas to FL, easily, and I want to get some of these NHL lists to FL too before i fix up theirs further. :)
 * I'd be interested in hearing Daniel's view on the relative importance of, say, the Roosevelt NPS areas not too far from him vs. the NHLs in his area of NY. An obvious comparison to make, is NPS area FDR's home vs. FDR's Top Cottage which is a very charming and nice NHL, but secondary, and only visited on some tours from the FDR home, the main historical site.  Another comparison:  the NHL Newtown Battlefield may or may not be nice, but NPS area Saratoga National Historical Park is really important.  Ask anyone about what happened at Newtown (huh?) vs. what happened at Saratoga (usually credited as where the Americans won the Revolutionary War).  So I think some of the stated basis of Orlady's concerns, while not at first unreasonable, is unfounded and should disappear upon more examination. doncram (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My main point was not to suggest that the NPS-managed properties are any less (or, for that matter, more) important than NHLs. The point is that they aren't NHLs, so they should not be presented as NHLs or as "national class historic landmarks." If the scope of the article is NHLs, the article should list NHLs, not NHLs plus NPS-managed historic properties. Furthermore, note that argumentation about the historical value of these sites is WP:OR. --Orlady (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but you motivated your main point by your stated concern that some non-NHL National Monuments, National Historic Sites, etc. were less historically important. If true, that would be a good argument against keeping the non-NHL historical NPS areas in the article.  I want to allay that concern.  I certainly want both what is explicitly said in the article, and what is most likely to be assumed by readers, to be entirely accurate.  Perhaps it would be productive to focus on what is specifically said in the article, and try to edit it to be the best possible article keeping the NPS areas in.  I don't currently think there is any OR about that in the article, but perhaps there could be better wording.  And you could reserve the right to still judge that it wasn't good enough, that it is impossible to mention or describe the non-NHL NPS areas noted by the National Park Service as historical in the article.  Note I did adopt your own previous language in the intro sentence;  perhaps that should be further changed.


 * I think it's relevant to comment that in recent extended discussion at wt:NRHP on names for lists of NRHP sites, at one point Orlady and I both were supporting the candidate "National Register of Historic Places properties in Wisconsin" and the like. We both knew that was imperfect in some way as a list title, as is every other title proposed there before or since.  The technical fault with that one is that it would appear to be a list of properties (objects, buildings, structures, sites), which would not include historic districts of many properties, but Orlady and I both concluded was better than the longer "National Register of Historic Places properties and districts in Wisconsin".  And, happily it seems to be accepted to include the former NHLs in this List of NHLs in NY article, while the title does not convey that, and someone could argue the former ones must be excluded too.  My point is that perfection in naming is not always possible.  I think, for a geo list-article, this "List of National Historic Landmarks in New York" title is quite good.  Going to "List of national historic landmarks in New York" to use "national historic landmark" in a different way would begin to verge on the wp:Neologism issue that reared in the NRHP list naming discussion.  I think it is a List of NHLs proper in NY, and it has other national sites which are in fact of higher-than-average historical importance and interest to readers, and that is fine.  But, wording in the intro and table titles could well be improved. doncram (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that an article calling itself "List of National Historic Landmarks in New York" should have those items, the prefatory text, the link to the NYC list and the list, plus a final section for the one former NHL we have. That's all. It seems from your comments, Don, that the inclusion of the other items is a way of subtly second-guessing the NPS's selection process, which it is not Wikipedia's place to do. If readers want Independence Hall to be an NHL (it's already a UNESCO World Heritage site, so I don't know if the NHL designation would be anything but superfluous), they should get the idea from the facts presented in that article and pester the NPS to do so. Also, most of the NHSes that aren't NHLs are partially or totally owned and operated by the federal government itself, as opposed to NHLs, which are not government-owned if they weren't already. The Park Service seems to want to be very clear about that, and commingling the two in a list is not helpful to that end, since the NPS still has to overcome people thinking that if their house is listed on the Register, the federal government will be able to dictate how and when they can flush their toilet. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope this discussion isn't going to go down a bad path due to projections and misunderstandings. I certainly don't want to directly suggest or imply that the NPS got it wrong with their NHL designations in general (although they did happen to screw up with designating the wrong house as the Florence Mills House).  I do think that I am correct in my understanding that the NHL designations, which started in 1960, were meant to fill in gaps in historic preservation around the start provided by miscellaneous National Monument, National Historical Park, etc. designations starting back in the 1890's or before.  In New York State, the 1960's NHLs filled in around the FDR estate, the Statue of Liberty, the Saratoga battlefield, and various other highly important places that were already preserved.  To explain the NHLs in NY properly in context, it is necessary in some way to explain or present or suggest that.  Providing a list of the previously designated ones, including showing their dates established, is part of providing that context.  (And also, when presented properly, it provides readers with a more useful list of the more important historic sites in NY.)  I do not have NHL program history documents that describe that process working that way directly, I concede, to add quotes in a text narrative.  But it is obvious when you look at what was previously preserved, and then what the NHL program has designated.  If we can't agree on that basic process happening, that the NHL program filled in around the previously-designated areas, then I don't know what to say.


 * By the way, prompted by some recent comments and edits on List of NHLs in TN, on my watchlist, i found my way to add a corresponding section on non-NHL historic sites in TN to the List of NHLs in TN, trying a different way of wording. I started to emphasize providing perspective about the NHLs by listing the non-NHL NPS areas there.  It should be more obvious to Orlady, who self-reports as being from Tennessee, that the non-NHL NPS areas in that state are, on average, the more important historic sites, and it is to be noted they were all established before the NHL program.  And then I hope Orlady would be more inclined to believe that the same process might well apply in NY, as i have suggested.


 * Also, Daniel, are you meaning to suggest an issue that out of the 3 "former NHL" listings, only the demolished and delisted one should be described, and not the two ships? But, the NHL program currently lists those two ships as being NHLs in NY.  The two current NHL webpages about the ships describe them as NHLs in New York State.  They show up in the NY subset, when you search the NHL webpage system for NY sites.  Understanding that, I assume you wouldn't then insist on those being dropped from mention in this List of NHLs in NY article.  I don't want to make too much of this, but this seems like another instance where a judgment was stated (that only the one should be listed) prematurely.  Wouldn't it be better to comment more mildly, or to ask questions, rather than locking into a judgment?  I'm not predicting that we'll be locked into argument on this point, because a first reaction was overstated as a judgment, but perhaps discussion on the other points has evolved into argument that way.  Personally, I don't want to argue about anything.  I just want to collaborate to get a good list-article cleaned up a bit for readers and then get it recognized as a FL, meaning as some of wikipedia's best work. doncram (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Back in the first Peer review I wrote about what was then called "Areas in the United States National Park System" ''I can understand why this is included here, but this seems to me most likely to be challenged at FLC as being tangential to the topic. It may be I am more sensitive because of the last FLC I was in, where we had to cut a whole section as being not sufficiently related to the topic.'' Since the title is "List of National Historic Landmarks in New York" I too think this section does not belong in the article, as these do not meet the title. I have no trouble with them being in another article, nor do I have a problem with this article mentioning the new list and linking to it. I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have always recalled that comment and discussion, and that has led me to be perhaps overly sensitive about this issue with this list-article. As I recall it, you were letting me know that you were very unhappy with being forced to drop what was a relevant section of your FL.  I think it is lousy if FLC reviewers can sabotage FL recognition for a very good list-article for sake of an arbitrary point, as if they were illegitimate, just doing it as a power trip for themselves.  That is the sense I recall taking from your original comments, although i could interpreted it wrong.


 * I do think that describing in some way the previously protected highly historic sites in New York is essential to explaining the NHL designations. Is it okay to list them and their dates, in a smaller table?  Is it okay to list them in the text.  I fail to see where it is justifiable to draw a line prohibiting mentioning non-NHLs.  Then why not allow me to describe them as much as i feel is necessary to suggest their equivalent (or in my view often greater) significance.  This has the effect of clarifying that the first NHLs in the 1960s filled in around what was already fully adequately recognized and protected sites.  Since the 1960s, there have been cases where the lesser protection of NHL designation occured and then later the site was further protected, for example the African Burial Ground relatively recently declared a National Monument.  To explore the sequencing of these actions could require a more elaborate table having both dates, or could require several tables grouping the NHL-first ones, etc.  Without getting into all of that, I feel that it should be okay to just list the non-NHL ones and provide enough description to convey their relative importance.


 * I think that a list of just the NHLs, without addressing their relative importance to the historically oriented National Monuments, etc., is a less useful list-article. Few readers would have an intuitive, natural way to gauge the NHLs.  Why is a list of NHLs important, what is important about these rather than other sites, are implicit questions raised by a list just presenting them out of any context.  The natural way to explain these is that these are among the most important sites in the state, but clearly they do not include all of the most important sites, as they filled in around some already highly recognized and protected sites, such as the Saratoga battleground and the FDR mansion.  Exact rankings of which are more or less important is impossible, and there are relatively few of these important non-NHLs, so we can just easily list them, and that is the easiest and direct way to accurately suggest the real situation.


 * If there is no movement to agree with my views, I will presume that it will now be unlikely this list can be featured, unless some wonderful sources about the history of the NHL program open up and provide acceptable clarifications along these lines. I note this list, and every other NHL list, is undermined somewhat by the relatively inadequate wikipedia article and knowledge on the National Historic Landmark program.  I think this is a shame that this list will apparently not be FL-recognized, as there has been a tremendous amount of good work done developing this whole system of articles and photos, and I think it is very good and should be recognized sooner rather than later.  I might still make a stab at rewriting the article and its transitions more persuasively, and put it up for FL sometime.  But, this is depressing. doncram (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)