Talk:Crawford family of the White Mountains

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sourcing[edit]

The article has two sources, one being the academically-published Julyan and the other an amateurish website called whitemountainhistory. We should prefer the academic source as being likely more reliable than what is little more than a WP:SPS. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, things have moved on since the above, so it can probably be ignored now. However, has anyone any thoughts regarding this book? I know Arcadia/History Press published some very amateurish stuff but they do produce some more rigorous works also and this one may be in the category. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Publishing is fine as a source - it covers local interest publications so while the prose might be dry and whimsical, it's going to pretty reliable in terms of fact checking. I am certain I have put at least one or two articles cited almost entirely to History Press stuff through DYK and nobody batted an eyelid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. They've had a bit of a mixed reception at WP:RSN in the past. - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Have we really got this article titled correctly? Something like Crawford family might be better because it really has precious more to do with Abel than it also does with his sons, father-in-law etc. I'm not even sure yet whether the article was correct when it said that the Crawford Path etc were named after Abel rather than the main worker - Ethan - or indeed just the family as a whole. I know there has been a fairly big misreading of sources, so perhaps that is why it ended up under a title that I think is somewhat misleading. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, but maybe wait and see if it develops any further. Good work by the way, it has come on by leaps and bounds since I slapped a notability flag on it yesterday. I'd like a chance to study it some more and checkout the new refs that have been added. The only guidance I can find is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Articles_combining_biographies_of_several_people. You might seek advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or elsewhere. While there are articles for prominent families like Bush family and crooks like Cleveland crime family, I'm not seeing any quite like this, where individuals are perhaps not notable in their own right. The closest I can think of is Goler clan. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I think Ethan is individually notable. He is referred to as something of a folk hero in several sources, one of the breed of tough, imposing, can-do frontiersmen who pioneered the new America - think in terms of a lesser Davy Crockett or someone like that. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case this remains an article for all the Crawfords presently described, I would recommend something like "Crawford family of the White Mountains", since Crawford is a common surname. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the disambiguation specialists might be unhappy with that, unless and until there is an article about a different Crawford family. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, although I've just noticed Rodney family of Delaware, despite there being no Rodney family. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Rodney family of Delaware is basically just a list, or family tree, with links to notable individuals — not an article as such. Whereas Abel Crawford as expanded by you is a family narrative, which is obviously (to me) something a lot more interesting. So I definitely wouldn't model this one on the Rodneys. The title "Crawford family of the White Mountains" seems good to me. I know there isn't another article about a "Crawford family", but on the other hand the world is choc-a-block with people called Crawford. You'd really be hiding your White Mountains family under a general title like "Crawford family", as well as disappointing 95% of the people who come here from some search engine. "Gee, I thought it was gonna be about my family." Both these effects seem undesirable. Never mind the dab specialists, let them hash it out later. Anyway, whatever the family-type title, what are your plans? Refocusing this one a little for the family, with a new lede, as well as creating a short separate article about the heroic Ethan? Or does Abel still deserve a separate article as well? Bishonen | talk 17:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think their stories are so intertwined that it might be best to leave them in one article but have redirects from the individual personal names. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Crawford family of the White Mountains and some redirects created for the major players. Thanks all. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

The Citations section is going to become very cluttered due to the long title names of the sources. Does anyone object to me converting to the {{sfnp}} citation style, which would mean that the titles only have to be shown once in a bibliography section? - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I think it would be clearer as it gives a better indication of how many (or few) sources there really are. Derek Andrews (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed :) That is a valid point, often missed, and my work today has largely relied on one source. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble getting my head round your link to {{sfnp}}, Sitush. (Man, how do new users ever manage to reference anything?) But the reference section would definitely benefit from the "ref name" system, whatever it's technically called. Generally I hate that, because people will insist on it even where there are lots of sources and each is only cited two or three times, which only makes it harder to add or change anything. It's too popular. But in this case it would help. Or something else that shortens the ref section, such as the Harvard style. Anyway, very cool article, you have done wonders, Sitush. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
{{Sfnp}} is a more "clever" version of Harvard, Bishonen. It reduces the amount of markup in the article, as well as producing the Harvard look of short cites + bibliography (eg: "Smith (2002) p. 10" but as a link, so clicking on it goes to the bibliography entry). Thanks for the thoughts, and for those concerning the naming. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and made the change. At this point, it isn't terribly difficult to revert but I do have some other sources that may well come into play and any such additions might make reverting more complex. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Crawford family of the White Mountains/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 17:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


preliminary to review, I suggest some edits here okay?

will start in the next coule of days. auntieruth (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail :
  • I'm not a fan of infoboxes. I'm sure you're familiar with the arguments that have raged over them but I've stayed out of those things and just done what seems right to me. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notch, as a shortened form of Crawford Notch, should be capitalized. Please link all first mentions to other articles in the main part of the article (White Mountains, Crawford Notch, etc.) Did Ethan fight in War of 1812?
  • Yes, I do not disagree about the capitalisation. I will check the links again - I did think I had it as you describe but perhaps some slipped through. I've no idea what war Ethan fought it - the sources are not specific either about the name or indeed the dates. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, "main part of the article". You're interpreting the linking guidance differently to me and to those who have reviewed my past GA and FA nominations, I think. I link on first use, which in some instances means the use in the lead section rather than subsequent use in the body. If I also link in the body, that is technically overlinking. Unless the guidance has changed in recent months? - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm always told to link in the lead and in the first use of the main part of the article. it's not technically overlinking, and if you search the article for dupe links, it doesn't show up. So I figure that's the way it's suppose to be. Also, you might explain somewwhere what a geological "notch" is. Col. auntieruth (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would resist that advice unless there's a very clear case for it. Infobox plus main text once, maybe. Tony (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Despite all the walking I've done here in the UK, I've never come across the term. From the pictures, descriptions and maps, it's a cleft between two higher rock formations, forming a pass, but I'm no geologist and we do not seem to have an article specifically for the term (DICDEF, probably). I'll see what I can find. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Notch (landform) redirects to Col. Added a link to that. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
search the article for dupe links - is this a reference to some tool? I know of the dablinks one but that doesn't do it as far as I am aware. - Sitush (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it's called "find duplicate links, but I don't know why it has appeared in my tool kit on the left column. :( auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Neither do I. It doesn't appear in Preferences > Gadgets etc. Perhaps it is a tool you have added to your common.js. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will add the links in the body if you want. I doubt that they will stay there because somewhere down the line I will return and will have forgotten your interpretation of the guideline, thus removing the things again. The old dog/new tricks problem after having done it one way for so many years. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crawford_family_of_the_White_Mountains&oldid=1201223073"