Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albany Pine Bush/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 not promoted by Karanacs 14:34, 3 November 2010 [1].

Albany Pine Bush[edit]

Featured article candidates/Albany Pine Bush/archive1

Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is well-written and well-sourced, comprehensive, interesting, and recently became a GA.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dab links, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cite 26, a book, which pages did you use? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From A-D, the pages are: 381, 382, 386, 379. I'll add a link to that book on Google Books.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added a separate bibliography section.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Ref 5, 17, 31: "Save the Pine Bush": This appears to be a volunteer pressure group. As such, it is hardly likely to qualify as an impartial source. What are its credentials as a high quality encyclopedic source?
Ref 7 ~~Likewise "The Stockade Association of Schenectady, New York, Inc.", which is also a preesure group. The page is well presented and informative, but no author is given; how do we know it is reliable?~~
~~Ref 15: ancestry.com - these sites are not written by historians and there is no vouching for their accuracy. As this is a double citation, is it worth keeping?~~

Ref 16: Several issues:-
The original edition of Moby Dick was published in New York by Harper & Brothers

You do not cite a page number.

A description within a novel does not seem convincing, encyclopediclly. How do we know that Melvile wasn't exercising poetic licence? On balance I would recommend withdrawing the sentence and the citation.

Ref 23 would not link for me

~~Ref 24: the publisher information is not in accordance with the link (Bartlett-Orr Press)~~

Otherwise, sources seem OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I tried to address your points in the following ways:
  1. Save the Pine Bush has its own article, and I feel it has enough refs to be notable.
  2. Likewise, the Stockade Association is referred to by third parties [2], [3], [4]. I see no reason to doubt that the site in ref 7 belongs to that organization, or any reason the information would not be accurate.
  3. I've removed the ancestry.com ref, you're right, it's not necessary.
  4. I've changed the wording of the Moby Dick sentence and added a page number.
  5. Ref 23 is a document that's within a Java-based reader, I've added a |format=Java parameter.
  6. I've fixed up the Stvdies for Albany ref.
- --Gyrobo (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The issue is not whether Save the Pine Bush or the Stockade Association are "notable" per Wiki definition; they no doubt are. It is whether they can be considered as independent and neutral, which is quite difficult for pressure groups. Are there no alternatives that support these statements? Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I've found another ref to supplement the Stockade ref, it says pretty much the same thing but it's by Don Rittner, the author of another ref. I've found some new sources that could supplement/replace the Save the Pine Bush refs, but that Wolcott one is pretty much the definitive source I have for what happened following the 1912 study. I could keep looking tomorrow.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see Stockade and Save the Pine Bush refs covered by additional refs. A couple of Pine Bushes still need cover. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced most of the Save the Pine Bush refs, but one of the refs I'm using is purportedly a Times-Union article that's been copied verbatim on the Save the Pine Bush site. The Times-Union online archive doesn't go back far enough to cover it, but an incomplete version of the article is available at [5], so I don't see any reason to doubt the authenticity.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard that, Camelbinky managed to find the Times-Union link I was looking for.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the only information the ref still covers is a one-sentence assertion that the thruway and a brush manufacturer were built on Pine Bush land. Would it hurt this article if the sentence was removed completely?
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Save the Pine Bush ref with a 1954 New York Times article describing the construction of part of the Thruway. It includes a map traversing the Pine Bush. I viewed the original article as a PDF via ProQuest.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image comment I find the release assocated with File:Pine-pitch.gif very questionable. Other than that looks fine.©Geni 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworded it slightly. Is that good?
  --Gyrobo (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait, if you were talking about the license of the image, then I agree it should be changed. That's the symbol of an organization, it should probably be fair use. I'm not very well-versed on image licensing, could someone familiar with it please update the license accordingly?
    --Gyrobo (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't believe it to be in the public domain. We might be able to use it under fair use but is it significant enough to be worth doing so?©Geni 22:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It represents the logo of an organization, Save the Pine Bush. I put it in an infobox on that page, it seems encyclopedic to keep it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping Jappalang (talk · contribs) for another look at the images. File:Pine-pitch.gif may be a copyvio and NFCC No. 8 needs further input before it can be used under Fair Use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the image and its caption, and in retrospect I agree that it really doesn't add significantly to the article. I've removed it, though the image still has license problems and is still being used on Save the Pine Bush.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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