Talk:Town of Seattle Ordinance No. 5

Town of Seattle Ordinance No. 5 has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 10, 2024. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Town of Seattle Ordinance No. 5 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 February 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a law banning Native Americans from living in Seattle was voided when Seattle itself was abolished?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ordinance No. 5.

Wikipedia

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Mid-importance).

Did you know nomination

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]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that a law banning Native Americans from living in Seattle was voided when Seattle itself was abolished? Source: https://www.historylink.org/file/10979 "In 1867, the state legislature dissolved the government of Seattle, at the request of the town's residents. When the town was reincorporated in 1869, the ban on Native residents was not re-enacted."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/AtariWriter

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]

General eligibility:
New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

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

Passed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 10 February 2024 (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.

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".
- "Treaty War" is a name for the broader conflict including the Yakima War and Puget Sound War. Generalissima (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]

@Voorts: responded, ty so much! Generalissima (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Thrush, I see page 54 supporting the point made in the article, not page 63. Also, although not required for GA, I'd recommend adding the series and editions for all of your book references. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: Yeah, I fixed the page number in my initial run-through. And that's a fair point, let me add that. Generalissima (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: I'm not going to wait for you to add those to promote the article. Very nice work on this important piece of history. If you have time, I have a couple of GANs needing reviews on my user page. Cora Agnes Benneson might be of interest to you. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 10 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.