Jump to content

Talk:Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids, Lemmon Petrified Wood Park
Pyramids, Lemmon Petrified Wood Park

5x expanded by TCMemoire (talk). Self-nominated at 00:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@Kevmin: The difference here is this is a manmade petrified wood park—a sculpture park of petrified wood—not a petrified forest. The NRHP form sourced to the claim in the lead here also supports this claim. TCMemoire 01:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the application form, while using the asserted verbiage, is too vague to qualify as reliable here. It doesn't seem to actually make the distinction that you make here between preserved forests and a "park". I wouldnt have issues if the hooks didn't use the largest claim, something that is nebulous.--Kevmin § 01:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional thought on the application also brings up that its (essentially) a primary source for the statement, while we should be using secondary and tertiary sources to back up the veracity of the claim.--Kevmin § 16:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: I agree, and will concede that the claim may certainly be outdated, as the NRHP document is from 1977. Unfortunately, roadside attractions often go ignored by non-newspaper secondary sources (many of the newspaper articles in this article count as secondary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS), so it is difficult to find one that substantiates this claim; and most local material (including the book in Further reading) is offline and inaccessible to me. Should we strike this claim from the article as well? It is very often repeated in sources, but I agree that this seems to be an extension of the park's own claim. May I propose two alternative hook options (supported by the sources given in ALT0 and ALT1, repectively, and I have added inlines for both):
ALT2: ...that the Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum features 100 pyramids made out of cannonball concretions and petrified wood?
ALT3: ...that the Lemmon Petrified Wood Park & Museum contains 3,200 tons of petrified wood?
TCMemoire 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article cited and sourced. With regards to the "largest" statements, adding caveats to the sentences it appears should be good enough (eg "when dedicated", "claimed as in the NRHP application" ...), once that is done the prose will be natural. Sources are verified. Both Alt2 and Alt3 are cited and interesting. Good to go once the article is massaged a bit.--Kevmin § 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: Thanks; lead paragraph and text referring to the claim under Description have been reworded (and did a little bit of restructuring, e.g. moving History#Prehistory down to the Paleontology and geology section as it fits much better there). TCMemoire 12:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, the restructure reads well and clears up the wording issue. everything looks good to go now!--Kevmin § 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]