This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph of better quality be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Massachusetts may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The author of this article, also created a later one for the same house as Historic 1699 Winslow House with additional content. I will propose a merge for now, but both articles have apparent conflict of interest and promotional tone problems. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, i've now read the article more carefully, and i don't think all the critical tags added by a vigilant wikipedia editor are needed here. The main issue here is that it would help to add some specific sources, hopefully including some published books and articles describing this site written by third parties, as well as any brochure or other documents produced by the Winslow House Museum itself. One particularly relevant source would be the NRHP program's official registration documents for the site. These can be obtained from the National Register, by request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov.
Otherwise, while there is a mildly "promotional" tone to the current version, it does not appear to have anything controversial. I don't think there are any serious tone or COI issues here at all. Perhaps the most extreme statement it includes (and this is so mild as to make me want to apologize in advance for seeming to complain) is the assertion that children often find one part of the museum to be their favorite part of the tour. Pretty harmless stuff! However, it probably be hard to document that by a reference, so that particular statement should probably eventually edited out (unless there is such a statement in a printed brochure, say, which can be used as a source). However, it's best to start by adding sources and documenting the major statements and facts in the article, tnen clean up any unsupported statements last.
So, mainly i want to say to Winslowdirector, thanks for contributing this article! doncram ( talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph of better quality be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Massachusetts may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The author of this article, also created a later one for the same house as Historic 1699 Winslow House with additional content. I will propose a merge for now, but both articles have apparent conflict of interest and promotional tone problems. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, i've now read the article more carefully, and i don't think all the critical tags added by a vigilant wikipedia editor are needed here. The main issue here is that it would help to add some specific sources, hopefully including some published books and articles describing this site written by third parties, as well as any brochure or other documents produced by the Winslow House Museum itself. One particularly relevant source would be the NRHP program's official registration documents for the site. These can be obtained from the National Register, by request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov.
Otherwise, while there is a mildly "promotional" tone to the current version, it does not appear to have anything controversial. I don't think there are any serious tone or COI issues here at all. Perhaps the most extreme statement it includes (and this is so mild as to make me want to apologize in advance for seeming to complain) is the assertion that children often find one part of the museum to be their favorite part of the tour. Pretty harmless stuff! However, it probably be hard to document that by a reference, so that particular statement should probably eventually edited out (unless there is such a statement in a printed brochure, say, which can be used as a source). However, it's best to start by adding sources and documenting the major statements and facts in the article, tnen clean up any unsupported statements last.
So, mainly i want to say to Winslowdirector, thanks for contributing this article! doncram ( talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)