That s my fault because I thought wikipedia no original research in its section on primary secondary and tertiary sources was discouraging primary sources in wikipedia because interpretation of primary sources should be done by a published source and THEN be used in wikipedia but re reading it I see that it does make an exeption if the primary source can be considered reliable and not likely to be misinterpreted by wikipedians I see the difference now and how the other sites are probably plagiarizing since you re correct they do nt cite sources a kinda disheartening realization that a school website is plagiarizing I was editing in good faith I wanted to add info from a wide range of sources instead of just relying on just the NRHP which is something you brought to the table I really wanted to bring something different and contribute myself What do you think about that Popular Science article from 1912 could that be used I think it brought a pretty cool first hand account of the opening and its kinda exciting that a building in lil ole Albany got mentioned in a magazine like that