Talk:Jugtown Historic District

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jugtown Historic District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Rjjiii talk 04:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that a brass band from the New Jersey community of Jugtown was rumored to have drank and fought the police instead of playing at Ulysses S. Grant's funeral?
5x expanded by Lbal (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Not sure where or how to add the QPQ? I've reviewed another article but not sure if I did it correctly. Lbal (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was expanded more than 5x, (from 314 to 9854 characters) within the allotted seven-day limit.[1] Earwig shows no outstanding issues, but some similar wording of common phrases. I don't think this is a problem. The article is sourced and neutral, however, I did take exception to minor issues, which I have noted in a separate section on the main article talk page. After thinking about it, I do not believe these issues rise to the level of interfering with the current DYK nomination. My main problem in that regard is that the material is slightly selective and excessively bland based on the sources which are anything but (for example, the Zink 2024 publication linked above is written in an incredibly interesting and exciting format, and many of the main points found there did not make their way into this article). As for the hooks, I have no real preference, but they all check out. I have struck ALT2 as it needs to be rewritten ("a pottery's presence" makes no sense). So in lieu of new hooks, I approve ALT0 and ALT1, which I have confirmed in the sources. ALT1 adds a bit more than appears in the current article, but this is implied by the existing text and I don't think that should hold it up. Per comments below, ALT2 is back in play, which I evidently misread in my haste to write a review. My apologies. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbal: could you make ALT1 slightly more explicit in the article? I agree with Viriditas that it can be inferred that the slaves were fugitives and hiding in the tunnel but would be hesitant to promote it with those stated in the hook but explicitly in the article where the citations are. Rjjiii (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m away for a bit, but when I return I can make the changes. I think the nom is inactive. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back, and I'm going to address this now. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: I believe I have fixed the problem. Please verify. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I'll likely promote this soon, Rjjiii (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I am active! Haven't been getting notifications for some reason. I would like to point out "pottery" in ALT2 refers to a pottery shop, the sources use a more antiquated term for it. Would rephrasing it that way put ALT2 back in commission? I can make the requested change for ALT1 in the article.

Yeah, that makes sense. I restored it and crossed out my comments. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generating interest

[edit]

I just consumed two cups of coffee before doing a read through and I still nodded off asleep twice. I'm serious. If you're going to write so formal and dry, there are tricks you can use to make a boring topic exciting for the reader. One of the easiest ways to do this is to identify the most interesting sentences in each paragraph and try to draw that into a tighter narrative. I was able to identify these things fairly easily in your prose, and I can't help but notice that you did the opposite; it appears that you buried the most interesting aspects of each section deep within the paragraphs instead of bringing them to the surface. This is curious to me. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples:
Lead: pottery industry, commercial development and growth, canal, college, zoning. It's written like you just don't care, so why should the reader? Make us care about the subject.
Etymology: You've got enough here for an SNL episode, so I won't touch this. I did laugh several times, however, imagining the role of Mikey Day dressed in colonial attire, making inquiries, etc. That's a joke, btw.
Initial settlement: Nothing about pre-European inhabitants; what was there before? There is a prehistory here, and I tend to cover it in most articles I write about. All you say is that it was a "tract" of land. Are you trying to put the reader to sleep? I feel like you are doing this intentionally. Do you dislike the subject in some way? Because it comes across as if you are just phoning it in. Where's the excitement? Where the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom. This makes me very angry, very angry indeed. (Another joke, in case it needs to be pointed out)
Pottery hub: Probably the most interesting thing about the article, yet you don't say more than a sentence about the type of pottery, and it's way late in the section where you say the jugs were "stone and clay". That's it? Three words about the basis for the name of the town and its most important commercial endeavor? What were they used for? Did they trade outside the area? Etc. You also don't talk much about whether slaves were used to make the pottery, but you insinuate that they were. If you want to maintain interest, then discuss the things readers find naturally interesting.
Industrial decline and women's college: You say the ceramics competition from the next town over caused the decline of the local industry, but you don't explain how or why. It's also odd that you mix the industrial decline with the establishment of the women's college as a historical epoch, as if the promotion of women's education was representative of a cultural decline. I found that odd, I wonder if others might as well. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to point out that Zink 2024 makes the topic exciting and breathtaking. I don't see why you can't import that same enthusiasm here. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the honest (and entertaining) feedback. I'm somewhat new to editing Wikipedia, so I think I overcompensate with an excessively dry style. I'll try to spice it up a little. Lbal (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. -- Reconrabbit 13:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jugtown Historic District/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lbal (talk · contribs) 23:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 20:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for submitting this nomination and I hope the wait wasn't too tedious. Before I make any remarks on the text, for my own ease of access, do you mind if I convert the shortened footnotes to links? -- Reconrabbit 20:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead, that'd be great, Lbal (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Focus has been elsewhere. I'll try to keep you from having to wait any longer. -- Reconrabbit 13:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've touched up the prose where highlighted and clarified the sourcing on Margerum adapting the Fire Engine into houses. Within the next few days I'll make a list of the contributing properties. Lbal (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the list of (current) properties complete? -- Reconrabbit 05:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I've been busy. Will get it done today. Lbal (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the list should be complete now. Thank you for your patience. Lbal (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]
  • Was the pottery produced by the Horner family? The etymology suggests this, but later on it's stated that the potter is John Morton, who purchased land from Horner. Zink mainly writes that the name originated with the family, not that they were potters (though they likely made bricks).
  • Local lore holds that the Brass Band was hired to play at the funeral of Ulysses S. Grant, but that its members got lost, drank, and fought with police The wording is close to the source. It also bears mentioning that the bands did not exist prior to the 1880s.
  • Silkworms were raised in the village in the mid-1830s, which also housed a carriage shop Somewhat confusing; the village also housed a carriage shop? Only in the mid-1830s, or unrelated to the time period? How is this connected to silkworms?
  • The use of "character" is strange, but carries over from the 1986 nomination - I can't complain too much.
  • It may help to qualify Affordable Housing Overlay Zone 2 as "one such overlay" or similar. Also, why provide (AHO-2) when it isn't brought up again for the abbreviation to be useful?
  • Residents formed the group Save Jugtown, claiming that the addition would visually overwhelm the historic center of the district This sentence awkwardly breaks up the previous sentence from the next, which describes "this house".

That's all I have to note.

  • Copyright: Initial review only returns phrases that can't be reworded (place names, "in the mid-19th century", etc). Will come back later.

References

[edit]
  • Layout: Shortened footnotes are a little annoying to read when in plain text. Fixed

Spot checking

[edit]

Checking 10 sources (minimum). Numbers are based on this revision.

  • [5] checkY on Princessville, colloquial usage.
  • [7] checkY
  • [9] checkY
  • [13] checkY but what about hay, in addition to pork and produce?
  • [14] Orange tickY doesn't describe the Margrerum family adapting the No. 1 Fire Engine Company building into houses, only that "it was occupied until the late 19th century"
  • [18] checkY
  • [19] checkY
  • [22] checkY
  • [24] checkY
  • [29] checkY
-->

Scope

[edit]
  • Broad: Typically articles on historic districts list significant contributing properties. There is some description in prose but no explicit list. Some articles list every property individually. What's different here? Otherwise, historical and current coverage is broad enough to fulfill other requirements of this criteria.
  • Narrow: The coverage of the district's history is detailed enough, but again, a list of specific properties that is not in prose would be good.

Stability

[edit]
  • Neutrality: No inherent bias towards or against the residents or buildings that make up Jugtown or the events therein is present. Though some language carried over from Craig and Zink puts some more importance on the properties than the average author might, that's not unusual for an historic district (I think).
  • Edit warring: Little to no activity this year, nothing that could be considered disruptive. checkY

Images

[edit]
  • Free/Fair use: All images are appropriately licensed. Smallbones is a known contributor to Commons and the other photos are reasonably sourced as being taken with the users' iPhones. checkY
  • Relevance: Images are relevant to the text where they are placed.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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.