Talk:Silver Reef, Utah

Ghost town?

It's not quite correct to call Silver Reef a ghost town. The private land here has been subdivided, and Silver Reef is now part of (or adjacent to) Leeds, Utah. The old Wells Fargo office sits rather incongruously amid suburban homes. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A ghost town is a town that is a ghost of its former self. Whether it's part of Leeds or not, it's still a ghost of its former self. For example, Corinne has a few people in it, and it is considered to be a ghost town. Why? Because it used to have a lot more people. Silver Reef doesn't have the 2,000 people it used to have, which makes it a ghost, even if it is part of Leeds. --The Utahraptor (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be involved in judging what is and isn't a ghost town. We go by reliable sources, and there are many many that call Silver Reef a ghost town. Ntsimp (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. --The Utahraptor (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

I thought I would bring this up again. I was looking at the abandonment date that is included in the infobox (1891), but looking at the Demographics section, there were residents in Silver Reef from 1875 (when it was established as "Rockpile") to the 1950s, when the Colbath's left, and the town was resettled in the '70s and '80s, and has seen a small boom in population since then. I know most sources call Silver Reef a ghost town, but since it has residents, a Census was taken in the town in 1990, and considering Silver Reef's Census data for 2000 (and possibly 2010) is probably included in the Census data for nearby Leeds, kind of makes me lean away from the "ghost town" label. At this point I see three possibilities:

1. Leave the label as is; Silver Reef will still be labeled as a "ghost town", but the "abandoned" title in the infobox remains a problem. If we marked it as "1950s" there would still be the issue of the town having residents today.
2. Change Silver Reef's label to "Unincorporated community". This is probably one of the best things to do, but since it's most likely considered by Washington County to be a subdivision of Leeds, I'm not sure if this label would be entirely accurate.
3. Change Silver Reef's label to "Semi-ghost town". In some ways, this is somewhat better than the "Unincorporated community" label, but for some reason it just doesn't seem as encyclopedic as the other two options.

Any thoughts? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What do the bulk of the sources call it? I'm not remotely qualified to to have an opinion on which should be used, but if its notability (or at least its "interestingness") stems from it being abandoned, "unincorporated community" doesn't really tell the reader why it's interesting—which is the point of the opening sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Most sources call it a ghost town, but they do mention that the town has a few residents. In The Historical Guide to Utah Ghost Towns, Stephen Carr classifies Silver Reef as a "Class 6" ghost town, which, along with "Class 7" ghost towns, he considers semi-ghost towns. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if "semi ghost town" is a term used by a published expert in the field and not a Wikipedia-invented neologism, perhaps that might be the most accurate description? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Has the Silver Reef townsite been annexed into the city of Leeds, or is it still unincorporated county land on the city's outskirts? Ntsimp (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Ntsimp: Silver Reef's website mentions that the Wells Fargo Silver Reef Monument (which occupies much of the former business district of Silver Reef) is in Leeds, Utah. I'm assuming the rest of the town is considered a part of Leeds, as well. However, much of the former town hasn't been subdivided yet, and could be considered county land. There are parts of the old town (for example, the location of the Leeds Mill) that are BLM land.

@ HJ: If I re-labeled Silver Reef as a semi-ghost town, and provided a reference to Carr (and maybe a note explaining what his "Class 6" classification of Silver Reef means), would that be fine? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Silver Reef State Park

Do you think it's possible Silver Reef could be made into a state park? --BlackCowboy9 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• There were plans to make Silver Reef (at least part of it) into a state park years ago. I don't know what the State Legislature has done with the plans, but I think it's possible. --The Utahraptor (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

B-Class article

I honestly think Silver Reef is ready to be a B-Class article. I would like to direct you to the following article:

Bodie, California

It is rated B-Class even though it doesn't appear as good as Silver Reef. The Utahraptor (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bodie article's doing a lot better than this one. Check out WP:BCLASS; those are the criteria. This article still needs improvement in #1 (e.g., epodunk.com and ghosttowns.com are not reliable sources), and #2 (the History section is missing some important subtopics). And although it's not made explicit, I would say #5 means a suitable photo should go in the infobox, and we should take apart the image gallery. I understand this article has been essentially your creation, but don't take its assessment personally. I've said before that I've got a lot of good sources to use for this article, and I'll get around to doing that. Ntsimp (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. The Utahraptor (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove tone tag?

Should the tag about bad tone be removed? I've done a lot of editing concerning tone on this article, and although I'm not done, I'm pretty close. The Utahraptor ^Talk 00:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Wow, your improvements have been top-notch! Not only did I remove the issues tag; I've re-assessed the article as B-Class. Very fine job. Ntsimp (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! The Utahraptor ^Talk 15:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Population of Silver Reef

I want to remove the section on population. Other than the cited population data, it looks like original research to me, which, as I understand, doesn't belong on wikipedia. But I thought I should talk about it before just doing it, despite wikipedia's policy of being bold. I guess there's a limit to how bold you can be. So, what do you think? Should we remove the table? Also, Silver Reef does have a few dozen current residents. Do you think we could do some research and figure out how many people Silver Reef has? And if so, shouldn't we make a demographics section? OldWestHistorian (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? If there is n't any opposition in the next couple days I'm going to remove it anyway. OldWestHistorian (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The section should probably be replaced by a {{USCensusPop}} table. I replaced the made-up 1880 population with the actual census figure, and cited both 1880 and 1890 to the census. The other figures seem a bit unlikely. Ntsimp (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So what should we do about the other figures? I could do some research and try to find some reliable sources with population figures. Regarding the demographics section, see the very first topic on this talk page. Since Silver Reef is in close proximity to Leeds, the population of Silver Reef is probably included in the population of Leeds. So it would be difficult to get Census figures for Silver Reef. Not impossible, but difficult. I say just leave it as it is. No demographics section needed. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 19:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Moffat's Population History of Western U.S. Cities and Towns, 1850-1990, the figures for Silver Reef are to the right (all census figures). As expected, they match the census figures that Ntsimp already sourced (and add 1990).

Historical population

Census	Pop.	Note	%±
1880	1,046		—
1890	177		−83.1%
1990	50		—
Source:

I generally like using this table, but if we do so, we will lose the two other sourced data points - the 1876 number in the table now, and the results of an 1884 local census included in Moffat showing 1500 people - as the template only takes census years. While the rest of the data is unsourced and suspect (population claims for these old towns have often been overly lofty in my experience), these two seem pretty decent. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This brings up the demographics situation again. Seeing as how Silver Reef's 1990 population is higher than I thought it currently was, I'm starting to change my mind about a demographics section. But if we did that we'd have to change Silver Reef's label to an unincorporated community instead of a ghost town, and, for some reason, I'm leaning away from that label. Many sources don't call Silver Reef a community, but a ghost town. And a demographics section in a ghost town article would seem mighty strange, at least to me. Taking all this into account I'm not sure if we should include 1990's population in the article, and if we do, then the demographics section problem would just come up again. The Raptor ^{Let's talk}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Combined history section

I'm trying to prepare this article for a good article nomination, and I've been thinking about merging all of the subsections in the section "History" and making a large history section instead of having it split into subsections. Although there is a lot of information about Silver Reef's history, I don't think there's enough to split it into separate subsections. So I think we should combine all of them and make a large history section. Thoughts? The Utahraptor^{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 20:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Anybody? The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no opposition, I've done it. Feel free to undo it if you oppose but didn't speak up. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 14:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Something that should be included

Because Silver Reef was around at the time of the Edmunds Act, and since it was probably the only gentile city in southern Utah, polygamists hid here. I think this should be mentioned. OldWestHistorian (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Carr's book talks about that a little bit. I'll look into it. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 13:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead section too long?

Does the lead section look like it needs to be trimmed? An article the size of this one should only have one or two paragraphs in the lead section, per WP:MOS. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 01:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anybody going to respond? The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 15:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN

To ensure that credit to given where it is due, I'm co-nominating this article for WP:GAN with The Utahraptor, without whom this article would not exist. NielsenGW (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I don't think it's ready. Put it on hold, I still have a few things I need to do. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and do what you need to do. WP:GAN has quite a backlog in the Places category and it could be awhile before a reviewer gets to it. Plus, nothing motivates better like an impending deadline. :) NielsenGW (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a few things that I think need to be done:

1. Expand the "geology and geography" section
2. Give the article one last thorough copy edit
3. Write about the uranium mining that took place in the 1950s

There's probably a lot more that needs to get done, but that's what I can come up with off the top of my head. Nielsen, can you find anything on uranium mining in Silver Reef? I've got one source, but it only has one or two sentences on the uranium mining. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the GAN guidelines allow anyone to nominate an article, I wouldn't suggest nominating against the wishes of the chief contributor. It seems to me that such a move might create hard feeling and might be counterproductive. The Utahraptor requested a peer review of the article in September, and I reviewed it, hence my interest. The contributor tool shows here that The Utahraptor has made 261 edits, SMasters 139, and NielsenGW 53; thus it's clear who the main contributor has been. My advice here is that NielsenGW withdraw the nomination for the nonce and let The Utahraptor re-nominate when he is ready. I can only advise, not enforce, so you must do as you think best. Finetooth (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Silver Reef, Utah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some of the vegetation that you mention has articles but is not linked. Please link the ones that have articles.

   You mention the L.D.S. but do not explain what it means.

   St George should be linked once in the lead, and the first mention in the body of the article.

   A few of the citations are missing the publisher location: #4, 7, 16, 29. Citation #5 and 17 does not give a page number.

   In the further reading section, two of the book titles are not correctly capitalised and one is missing the publisher location.

   Everything in this category has been fixed. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

   There are still no page numbers for Cite #17.

   Fixed. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 04:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): No dead links b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Lots of books were used to prepare the article; that is good. I am unable to personally review the books as I do not have access to them, but examination online makes me feel they can be considered reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Is there any information available about the Anasazi that lived in the area? You start the article with the arrival of the silver miners, but it would broaden the scope of the article if you could give some details about the original inhabitants of the area.

   I notice on the talk page that you were going to try to find info on the history of uranium mining in the area. Were you able to locate any material on this topic?

   Yes, it's at the end of the "Decline" section. I'll work on researching the Anasazi history of the area. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

   I've written as much as I can right now. I couldn't find much on the web, but once I have time to go to the library, it should be easier to do research. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

   That's great. When do you think you can go?

   Possibly tomorrow, but I'm not entirely sure. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 04:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

   If not tomorrow or Friday, it might have to wait till next week because of the holidays.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Photos all are properly licensed etc. We have one instance where the text is squished between two pics. Can the layout be improved?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: I will watchlist and look for the requested improvements. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

   Improvements have been completed and article passes to GA status. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation problem

Hi. While reviewing the edits done recently by an IP on the citations, I noticed that cite #54 and 55 both have the same page numbers. While this is possible, it seems unlikely, and is worth checking out. Regards, --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 22:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the most recent revision before the IP's edits, this same problem existed. I don't have the sources with me currently, but I'll check them out at a library as soon as possible. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the error happened with this diff, So I am going to go ahead and correct it. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 19:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Inquest clarification

"An inquest held on both men in the saloon ...". Is the intention "An inquest on both men, held in the saloon, ..."? :)) --Stfg (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've fixed it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Notes

• Disclaimer: I can only say that I'm copyediting per my understanding of what will get through FAC; I could be wrong, FAC standards could be wrong in some sense, and even if they're right, standards are definitely different for lighter-weight review processes. - Dank (push to talk) 05:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "as a result", etc: See WP:Checklist#because. Usually, readers can make intuitive connections without cause-and-effect words. If you add the cause-and-effect words, then you need to be specific about the cause; for instance, you don't want to say "the company did minimal work as a result of the Great Depression", because "as a result" raises but doesn't answer the question of what about the Great Depression caused the slowdown (fewer customers? depressed prices? fewer workers able to travel that far? lack of suitable equipment?) If it's not very important or you don't know why exactly the work slowed down during the Depression, it works to simply say "minimal work during the Great Depression". I'll stop editing these myself, but the cause-and-effect words all need to be examined before this goes to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• The point about ambiguity is good, but I think there's a danger of trying too hard to remove cause-and-effect language and thereby losing information. Here, haven't we lost the information that property values in Bonanza City were high? In the current version, they could as easily have been low, and the miners could have been going for something still lower anyway. It's not wrong in itself to be explicit about causation. --Stfg (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Saying that property values were high raises but doesn't answer the question: high in comparison to what? I guessed that you were saying the miners thought the price was too high. But if they built their homes farther from the mines because it was cheaper, that implies the miners thought the price was too high. But maybe I had the wrong end of the stick ... do you want to say that the prices were high in comparison with something else?
    • The use of almost any adjective entails an implied comparative. I would think that calling property values high would just mean high on the scale of property values at the time. I doubt this needs spelling out. --Stfg (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I get what "high property value" means in a real estate market, but what does it mean in a mostly uninhabited wilderness? And, to be clear, it's not "high" by itself that seems like an issue to me here, it's "high" combined with a cause-and-effert word. What would fix it for me (other than the edit I made) is even a little explanation of what "high" means in this context. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Property values in such places depend on considerations like accessibility of mineral deposits, fertility, cultivability, irrigability, habitability, risk of insect-borne diseases, draught, possibly hostile indigenous people, wild animals, ... and (ultimately) cost: cost of developing the potential and fighting the hazards. The original sentence was 'Property values in Bonanza City were high, so several miners settled on a ridge to the north of it and named their settlement "Rockpile".' Personally, I think this is fine, because there is a real cause and effect here and I just don't see the objection to expressing it with "so". It could be changed to "and", but there is a loss of meaning in that, I think. --Stfg (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Feel free to make the edit, it's certainly won't lead to an oppose (by me or anyone else). I just want us to work on a meeting of the minds over time on this. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Done. Thanks very much for allowing it. --Stfg (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll search around for information on causation in modern prose in style guides ... Chicago isn't explicit, and Garner's doesn't treat it as an overarching principle, they just treat it one word at a time. To pick out one sentence to illustrate: in "Mines were gradually closed, most of them by 1884, as the worldwide price of silver dropped.", "because" and similar words are unnecessary, since if the closings were unrelated to silver prices, we wouldn't be juxtaposing the two points. [Note that my use of "since" in this sentence isn't a contradiction to the point, because this is argumentative prose, where cause-and-effect words are more common, not narrative prose.] - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • You used "as" rather than "since". I agree whith this example anyway. For the generality, I'll take it to the Checklist talk page. --Stfg (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
      • "as" means "at the same time as", not "because" here ... is "as" unclear? If so, I should use a different word. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
        • "as" works fine for me. --Stfg (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Last point: I'm trying my best to do my standard FAC copyediting job, but as always, I can go heavier or lighter, or say more or less about it, whatever you want. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I actually appreciate the comments. I'm going to be doing some Christmas shopping today, so I won't be around as much, but I'll work on your suggestions as soon as I have more free time. Keep them coming. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
      • @Dank: don't get me wrong -- I think you've made real improvements to this article (other than the "property values" passage). My concern is to avoid a position on cause-and-effect language that may be too generalized and too prescriptive. I'll explain why on the Checklist talk page. --Stfg (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks guys. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know much geology, but "geologic pressures" doesn't sound right to me. Tectonic stresses, maybe? - Dank (push to talk) 04:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Silver Reef is located at 37°15′10″N 113°22′04″W": See WP:NOICONS. - Dank (push to talk) 05:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC) P.S.: I get the sense that the geolocation icon is not considered a problem by most editors, and I personally mention NOICONS only at A-class and FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • How could I include the coordinates without using the symbol? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Since you have the blue globe at the top of the article and in the infobox already ... and the icon is also fine in captions, tables and footnotes, if you like ... I don't see the need for the icon or for the coordinates (to that level of precision) in the text, and you don't in general see that style in scholarly or journalistic writing. For a fuller discussion, see Template talk:Coord/Archive 9#blue globe and the links mentioned in that section. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• A general point: you guys may be thinking at this point that I'd be horrible for the guild, since I'm inviting more Guild people to participate at GOCE/FA ... that this level of pickiness will drive off some of the Guild's best workers. I just want to be clear that what I'm imagining is that we're talking about attracting a few Guild members and that my goal will be to help them find their comfort level; if someone knows comma rules and wants to fix the commas in an article that's going to FAC, that saves me and others a bunch of work, and they'll get the thanks of the copyeditors, the writers whose articles eventually pass FAC, and the whole community of reviewers ... and all I'll do is help them learn where the commas go. In this article, I'm talking more like I do with Milhist writers. My impression is that every project has leadership, that you two are in the leadership of the Guild, and that transparency here is best, so that you can tell me what you want more or less of (including in instructions such as WP:Checklist, which you're doing). I don't know for sure yet, but I'm guessing that there are at least a few Guild members who are going to be pleasantly surprised at the reactions if they start participating as copyeditors in review processes ... things will go wrong occasionally, but I'm volunteering to keep an eye on at least the GOCE/FA page and try to sort out problems as they arise. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Back to work ... I see a WP:DATED tag near "is a powder house which currently". - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this means anything, but when I visited Silver Reef last July, the powder house had the models. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, "as of 2011" works. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• I can't tell from the article if the sandstone formations were called "silver reefs"; if they were just called "reefs", then I'd go with: "The sandstone formations or "reefs" were formed ..."
• Do the sources say "Silver Reef" but "the White Reef"? Even if "the" occurs once or twice, I'd be inclined to drop it unless there's solid support for it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Silver Reef is a town and the White Reef is a natural geographic formation. Just as we don't say "the New York City" but we do say "the Rocky Mountains", we should say "Silver Reef" and "the White Reef". The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Now I see it in the previous paragraph, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• You might want the WP:LAB to have a look at File:Pine Valley Mountain from Lower Sand Cove at dusk 2009-06-10.jpg. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The average elevation of Red Cliffs Recreation Area is between 2,000 feet (610 m) and 3,000 feet (910 m).": That's too wide a spread for an estimate for a single figure. If the sources support this, you might say that the elevation the recreation area (or most of it) is between those figures. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Needing a place to rest": If this means that he slept overnight, then "he stayed with Orson B. Adams" covers that. If it means he was staying in the area for a while, then I think it could be clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. Actually, I'm going to make a guess, tweak it if I get it wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Although the circumstances behind the discovery of silver at Silver Reef are uncertain": I removed this, because it's not clear from the text which circumstances are uncertain. "One commonly accepted story" makes it clear, I think, that not everyone agrees. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "He did not find enough ore to interest him, so he left for Nevada.": Okay, let's take this last reversion. Do you have the source at hand? If you don't mind (I think it's fair use and not copyright infringement), could you reproduce a sentence or two that says why he left for Nevada? - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "who was known for finding ore in everything given to him,": If you're saying that the legend was that he was lucky and always found ore ... well, the point of this paragraph isn't to tell a famous tall tale, it's to give a possible alternate (or "alternative" in BritEng ... but not in AmEng, counter to a popular wiki-myth) history, so I'd leave the legend part out.
• "After performing tests on the sample, Murphy stated that it contained over $200 of silver per ton. After some investigation, Murphy discovered that the samples had come from the area that was to become Silver Reef. There is no record of Murphy ever staking a claim, but he did attract the attention of miners.": When you're telling a dubious story, remind the reader that the story is dubious every now and then. The emphatic "did" works against that here ... it suggests that all this really happened this way. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "One commonly accepted story is that a prospector named John Kemple came to the area in 1866 from Montana ... When geologists and other miners heard of Kemple's discovery, they discredited it on the grounds that silver could not be found in sandstone. When brought an actual sample from the area, the Smithsonian Institution called it an "interesting fake".": Okay, now I'm confused. You're talking about a plausible story that there was this guy named Kemple ... but the geologists who are reacting to him presumably aren't plausible, they're real. So, at what point does the story stop and the confirmed history start? - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I took care of it, but the sentence still looks a bit choppy to me. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Besides exploring the ghost town, visitors can explore the red rock country surrounding Silver Reef. Backpacking, camping, fishing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and hunting are among the activities available. Visitors to Red Cliffs Recreation Area, located south of Silver Reef, can picnic in a designated area with cottonwood trees.": I don't have any position on how much "touristy" stuff is appropriate in tourist areas. I think reviewers may object to listing the activities that can be done anywhere.
• Done. I left a few things above for you to do, otherwise it looks good for FAC to me. - Dank (push to talk) 05:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, I just looked through the PR quickly ... you did good, except I agree with Malleus that "European cuisine" could mean just about anything. And if the shooting matches were always pairwise, "between" is better than "among" ... otherwise, "among" is right. - Dank (push to talk) 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of abandonment

Although the infobox says that Silver Reef was abandoned in 1891, there were still people living there past that year. For instance, the proprietor of the Cosmopolitan Restaurant, Margaret Grambs, lived there until 1894, when she moved to Salt Lake City (I'll find the source that has this information). No sources ever state a specific date of abandonment, and even today, Silver Reef isn't abandoned. This does mean it's not technically a ghost town, but many sources call it a ghost town, despite it being populated.

Now, Dr. Stephen Carr, in The Historical Guide to Utah Ghost Towns, describes Silver Reef as a Class 6 ghost town, one that is "comprised of many old, abandoned buildings but with a few residents still living within." Carr goes on to say that ghost towns with a Class 6 and Class 7 classification are semi-ghost towns. Perhaps we should label Silver Reef not as a ghost town, but as a semi-ghost town, as Carr describes it. Perhaps we could also include a note explaining Carr's official classification of Silver Reef as a Class 6 semi-ghost town? Thoughts? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Population surge in Silver Reef

About a month ago, I visited Silver Reef again. It looks like there's a lot of home construction there; probably 150 to 200 people are living in town now, and that number is growing fast. What does this mean for Silver Reef? Should we call it a residential area or retain its traditional ghost town label? Thoughts? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The present article mainly focuses on the archaeological aspects of the site, but if it becomes an occupied town again, that might have to change. I'm not finding any source material online to add a section on the recent developments. Perhaps you can find some material in local newspapers next time you are in the area. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Depending on how much information I can find, we could easily add something on this new development in the history section. Also, there's a new organization that oversees the ruins and the museum there. It's called the Silver Reef Foundation. I'll do some research on that as well and add it to the Tourism section. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Silver Reef, Utah. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208103743/http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/ to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206185559/http://public.fotki.com/jwb592002/state_of_utah/historical-silver-r/ to http://public.fotki.com/jwb592002/state_of_utah/historical-silver-r/

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) 11:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)