This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are issues with many refs. Please check out/correct: Ref 23, 22, etc. Please refer to
referencing problems. These issues have been fixed.
Shearonink (
talk) 16:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Much improved. I agree that the Akron plan needs to be explained and that it is one of the reasons the former church is on the National Register.
Shearonink (
talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
There is too much detail about the "Akron Plan". Out of the total 2531 words/readable prose size, 951 are contained in this section, I think that's around 40% of the total article... This content has been adjusted and is no longer an issue.
Shearonink (
talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The Akron plan section is problematic and, therefore, so are the associated images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Comments
First of all, thanks for agreeing to do the GAR. I've done a few myself, and I know that it can involve a considerable committment of time and effort. Your willingness to do this for the good of the encyclopedia is appreciated.
Second, I'm sorry that it's taken me so long to respond, and I'm afraid that I won't get much done for the next few days. The end of the year is a busy time for me, and a press of obligations has forced me to put Wikipedia on the back burner. I'll try to do at least a little work on this between now and New Year's; after that, things should ease up considerably, and I should be able to put in some serious effort. I hope that the delay won't be troublesome for you. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 13:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
That's fine. There are no deadlines in Wikipedia. It's more important to get it done right, than simply to get it done.
Shearonink (
talk) 14:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your patience, and I'll try not to put too much strain on it.
I think I've fixed the referencing problems for citations 22 and 24. I've replaced the dead link in 22 with a link to an archived version at Wayback Machine; but, following the example toward the end of
WP:WAYBACK, have retained the old URL in "Archived from the original..." form. Thus it still shows up as a dead link when I run the
referencing problems tool. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 14:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
My year's-end tangle is largely cleared up, and I can now devote some serious time to this article. Thanks once again for your patience with me.
Re-reading the article, I think you're right about the excessive detail on the Akron plan. Sunday school was not part of my background, and I researched it hard in order to make sure that I knew the topic reasonably well before I started writing about it. That was good, but I then put too much of that research into the article.
I'm afraid that I have to differ with you regarding the Duplication Tool results as an indicator of possible interwiki copying. Apart from Wikipedia boilerplate, the longest duplicated phrase is one of six words, and it's the partial title of two cited works: "National Register of Historic Places nomination". The rest of the duplicates are all short phrases that would occur naturally in the course of writing about the subject: "according to the Akron plan", "the First Methodist Episcopal Church", "The Akron Plan Sunday School" (another title), "Sunday school rooms in the", etc.
I think that the appropriate next step is for me to merge the Akron-plan material from this article into the Akron-plan article, then to write a significantly shorter description for this article. This seems to be the approach indicated in
WP:SUMMARY: "It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article." During the first step, I'll be working on
Akron plan rather than on this article. Hopefully, that will go quickly; if there're delays, I'll come back here in a few days and give a progress report, so that you'll know I'm still at work on it. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 17:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I did say "it can indicate a measure of in-wiki copying". Wasn't sure myself which is why I wanted to mention the matter here on the Review page. I think your plan re working on the "Akron Plan" article first and then coming back to this one makes perfect sense. See you soon,
Shearonink (
talk) 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Quick progress report: My contribution history has been somewhat sparse the past few days, since I've been researching rather than writing. For the article on the Madison building, it sufficed to discuss the history of the Akron Plan up to the time of the building's construction. For my rewrite of the Akron Plan article, I need more on its decline. Complicating the task, Google Books has apparently made changes, and I'm still trying to figure out how to download PDFs of public-domain books. But I think I'm almost there: I need to add a paragraph or two more at the end of the article, then to write a lead section. I'm doing all this in userspace; once I get that finished up and move it into mainspace, I'll be able to summarize it in the Madison article.
And yet again, thanks for your patience. I hope to get some serious work done this weekend and tie up the loose ends very shortly thereafter. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 14:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Finished rewriting
Akron Plan and released the rewrite into userspace. I'm now working on a more concise description for this article. I'll do so in userspace, to avoid having to write edit summaries for lots of edits in mainspace. If you'd like to look over my shoulder, I'll be working on it at
User:Ammodramus/Draft2. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 13:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Think this is now ready to go. I've written a much more concise version of the "Akron Plan" section, and given it a couple of proofreadings. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 05:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Much-improved, I can see you've done a massive amount of copy-editing on the article.
Shearonink (
talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are issues with many refs. Please check out/correct: Ref 23, 22, etc. Please refer to
referencing problems. These issues have been fixed.
Shearonink (
talk) 16:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Much improved. I agree that the Akron plan needs to be explained and that it is one of the reasons the former church is on the National Register.
Shearonink (
talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
There is too much detail about the "Akron Plan". Out of the total 2531 words/readable prose size, 951 are contained in this section, I think that's around 40% of the total article... This content has been adjusted and is no longer an issue.
Shearonink (
talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The Akron plan section is problematic and, therefore, so are the associated images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Comments
First of all, thanks for agreeing to do the GAR. I've done a few myself, and I know that it can involve a considerable committment of time and effort. Your willingness to do this for the good of the encyclopedia is appreciated.
Second, I'm sorry that it's taken me so long to respond, and I'm afraid that I won't get much done for the next few days. The end of the year is a busy time for me, and a press of obligations has forced me to put Wikipedia on the back burner. I'll try to do at least a little work on this between now and New Year's; after that, things should ease up considerably, and I should be able to put in some serious effort. I hope that the delay won't be troublesome for you. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 13:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
That's fine. There are no deadlines in Wikipedia. It's more important to get it done right, than simply to get it done.
Shearonink (
talk) 14:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your patience, and I'll try not to put too much strain on it.
I think I've fixed the referencing problems for citations 22 and 24. I've replaced the dead link in 22 with a link to an archived version at Wayback Machine; but, following the example toward the end of
WP:WAYBACK, have retained the old URL in "Archived from the original..." form. Thus it still shows up as a dead link when I run the
referencing problems tool. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 14:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
My year's-end tangle is largely cleared up, and I can now devote some serious time to this article. Thanks once again for your patience with me.
Re-reading the article, I think you're right about the excessive detail on the Akron plan. Sunday school was not part of my background, and I researched it hard in order to make sure that I knew the topic reasonably well before I started writing about it. That was good, but I then put too much of that research into the article.
I'm afraid that I have to differ with you regarding the Duplication Tool results as an indicator of possible interwiki copying. Apart from Wikipedia boilerplate, the longest duplicated phrase is one of six words, and it's the partial title of two cited works: "National Register of Historic Places nomination". The rest of the duplicates are all short phrases that would occur naturally in the course of writing about the subject: "according to the Akron plan", "the First Methodist Episcopal Church", "The Akron Plan Sunday School" (another title), "Sunday school rooms in the", etc.
I think that the appropriate next step is for me to merge the Akron-plan material from this article into the Akron-plan article, then to write a significantly shorter description for this article. This seems to be the approach indicated in
WP:SUMMARY: "It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article." During the first step, I'll be working on
Akron plan rather than on this article. Hopefully, that will go quickly; if there're delays, I'll come back here in a few days and give a progress report, so that you'll know I'm still at work on it. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 17:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I did say "it can indicate a measure of in-wiki copying". Wasn't sure myself which is why I wanted to mention the matter here on the Review page. I think your plan re working on the "Akron Plan" article first and then coming back to this one makes perfect sense. See you soon,
Shearonink (
talk) 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Quick progress report: My contribution history has been somewhat sparse the past few days, since I've been researching rather than writing. For the article on the Madison building, it sufficed to discuss the history of the Akron Plan up to the time of the building's construction. For my rewrite of the Akron Plan article, I need more on its decline. Complicating the task, Google Books has apparently made changes, and I'm still trying to figure out how to download PDFs of public-domain books. But I think I'm almost there: I need to add a paragraph or two more at the end of the article, then to write a lead section. I'm doing all this in userspace; once I get that finished up and move it into mainspace, I'll be able to summarize it in the Madison article.
And yet again, thanks for your patience. I hope to get some serious work done this weekend and tie up the loose ends very shortly thereafter. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 14:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Finished rewriting
Akron Plan and released the rewrite into userspace. I'm now working on a more concise description for this article. I'll do so in userspace, to avoid having to write edit summaries for lots of edits in mainspace. If you'd like to look over my shoulder, I'll be working on it at
User:Ammodramus/Draft2. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 13:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Think this is now ready to go. I've written a much more concise version of the "Akron Plan" section, and given it a couple of proofreadings. —
Ammodramus (
talk) 05:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Much-improved, I can see you've done a massive amount of copy-editing on the article.
Shearonink (
talk) 06:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.