# Talk:The Concrete Herald

Hi, just a minor point that I would need the reference to clarify: in the section "Prior to the Great Depression", at the end of the first paragraph, the article says the price was raised. I then deleted the statement originally at the end of the second paragraph saying the price had gone down after I saw the same fact in the beginning of the third paragraph. Two things: might want to check that with the reference (always a good idea when the numbers are a little funny) and does the reference now adjacent to the Republican affiliation statement support that fact or the statement that I previously deleted? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Perhaps I didn't it sufficiently clear in the text, but the paragraph talks about two different competing newspapers that coexisted in Concrete, Washington. So, initially, when The Herald was published in Hamilton, its editor raised its price to $1.50. Then he moved the paper to Concrete where there was another paper, The Enterprise priced at $1.00. The editor subsequently lowered the price of The Herald to $1.00. (And, yes, the same source supports the price change and the affiliation.) I took the liberty to return the mention of the price, but I'm certainly open to suggestions how to make it all more clear. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks for doing it. Icebob99 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Concrete Herald/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


### Extended Discussion
I'm not convinced its appropriate to consider the "modern" Concrete Herald and the paper from 1901-1991 to be the same thing, and to discuss them in the same article.  Would it be reasonable to split this into two separate articles? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

After reading it a few more times, I think it should stay in this article, but all the "revival" content should be clearly in a separate section.  The "Distribution" section specifically is confusing (and the table layout needs improvement, but that's a separate issue). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: thank you for taking time to review this nomination! A couple of questions:
There is "Revival" section in the article. Do you mean that the treatment of the revival in the preamble is too extensive?
Could you be more specific as to how "distribution" is unclear and what changes you'd expect?
Thanks again, 凰兰时罗 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The preamble/lead section is fine.  I am suggesting that the "Awards" and the "Historical Distribution" section that deals with the original paper should be before the "Revival" section.  That way, all the "original paper" content is together, and then all the "revival paper" content is together.  Not going to have time to comment further on this until tomorrow, sorry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
No worries -- whenever you have more time... Meanwhile, I moved the revival section to the end. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I've re-ordered it to what I feel is more appropriate.  Feel free to make your own changes.  The layout of the table of price and circulation is still bad, I'm not entirely sure why it is behaving the way it is.  Once you're happy with the section ordering and the table layout is fixed, I'll pass this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I moved the distribution graphs up by a paragraph into the previous section. I think it looks better now. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I removed the "floatright" bit, and am happy with it now.  Feel free to revise further, but I don't think it should block this any longer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Power~enwiki, thanks a lot for your efforts :) 凰兰时罗 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @SounderBruce!

I’m confused by your edit – please help me out.
First, you injected the word “promotional” into your edit summary, which (I naturally assume) refers to WP:PROMOTION. Could you elaborate on this, please? From my perspective, if good things have been said about a newspaper in credible 3rd party sources and if this has been properly documented throughout the article, then it’s appropriate to include a summary of them. Moreover, how can something be a promotion, if we are talking about events in the paper’s history that occurred more than 50 years ago under the editorship of the person who has been dead for almost 30 years?
Second, I researched and added most of this material, because somebody was attacking the article on the grounds of notability. The information about awards and those 3rd party accolades is precisely the kind of information that strengthens notability, and I want this information to remain in place.
Look, I’m fully committed to constantly improving the encyclopedia. I’m 100% okay to accept criticisms, but I need to fully understand what’s wrong, what specific community consensus/policy I’m at odds with. As you know, sometimes one's edits are targeted unfairly, sometimes by people who erroneously project their own, subjective views onto something that community learned to interpret differently. So, let’s talk this through. Convince me that something is wrong here, and I’ll adjust my style not only for this article, but everywhere. (Frankly, I was taken aback a little by the fact that you expressed vague criticisms about John Leary’s article, but then dropped the subject entirely and archived the discussion.) Let’s work together, get to specifics, perhaps talk this through in person – I hope those in person Cascadia Wikimedians meetups will be back eventually :). 凰兰时罗 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Per MOS:BEGIN, the opening paragraph should be clear and adhering to the NPOV policy, which listing awards/honors is clearly not in line with. I only came across this article while conducting semi-automated cleanup (mainly with correcting the capitalization of "Washington State"), and felt that the lead was in bad enough shape to warrant a tag. The rest of the article is well-researched, but strays into promotional territory often, and needs a re-review at this point. SounderBruce 02:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi @SounderBruce,
Thank you for your explanation – it’s now clear where the gap is. I believe that your interpretation of WP:NPOV (as referenced in MOS:BEGIN) is incorrect. WP:NPOV does NOT prescribe any part of the article (the intro included) to be moderate its tone, thus avoiding ‘’any’’ ostensibly positive or negative language. This idea of “taming of the text” comes from a mundane interpretation of the word “neutrality” and NOT from the policy itself.
Instead, NPOV policy prescribes appropriate balance between credible sources. Specifically, if all the credible sources agree that, say, a software package, is “the best in the world”, it is NOT a violation of NPOV or MOS:BEGIN to state in the article about that the package that it’s “the best in the world.” What NPOV does say, however, is that IF sources ‘’differ’’ in their evaluations, some say it’s good, while others say it’s bad, THEN it would be incorrect to phrase the intro either from “good” or “bad” angle.
Furthermore, I discourage you once again from using the word “promotion” in this context. It’s misleading. Nothing from WP:PROMOTION applies here, because all the supplied information comes from credible sources.
Under the circumstances, there is no ground for removing positive information about the history of the newspaper, as it’s properly referenced by credible sources, and NO ALTERNATIVE SOURCES have been omitted or downplayed to violate NPOV. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)