Jump to content

Talk:Town of Seattle Ordinance No. 5

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 15:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 17:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ordinance No. 5; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Generalissima: I have found nothing wrong with this article. It is new enough, well sourced, and quite interesting (it's not everyday that laws get repealed due to the city no longer existing). The only change I made was to the reference section by adding a reflist template and changing "bibliography" to "works cited". Jon698 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hook says abolished and maybe it is the correct word. The source says, "The Territorial Legislature disincorporated Seattle on January 18, 1867, after most of the town's leading citizens filed a petition for dissolution." Bruxton (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Town of Seattle Ordinance No. 5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 01:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Review to come by 11 February 2024 at the latest. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Excellent work. A few notes:

  • I've made a couple of copy edits. Please let me know if you disagree with them.
  • I've checked all of the sources cited in the article. All of them are reliable sources. Source-text integrity looks good, unless otherwise noted below.
  • Can you please provide quotes from the Thrush and Williams books that substantiate the text in the article body?
    • Had the wrong page number on Thrush. For Williams it's essentially the entire page. - G
  • Ref 2 does not mention the "Puget Sound War".
  • For the first paragraph of the "Ordinance" section, is there a secondary source that you can cite to that supports your reading of the ordinance? In my view, summarizing a law based on one's own reading of it is OR.
    • Fair enough, cited it. The section with the town marshal is not mentioned in the sources, but falls under close paraphrasing and so I think avoids any OR problems. - G
  • Regarding the O'Malley source, per WP:DISSERTATION: "Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources." Was the thesis subsequently published or is there another source you can cite?
    • I could find no evidence of a later published source by O'Malley on the Duwamish. - G
  • In the legacy section, is there a secondary source you can cite regarding the resolution passed by the City Council?
    • Done! - G

Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:05, 9 February 2024 (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.