Talk:The Highlands, Louisville

message: This article apparently printed and distributed (with Wikipedia attribution) in the first issue of "The Highlander" newspaper which was apparently mailed to every house in the Highlands. I had nothing to do with this, but I hope the article was of acceptable quality to anyone who ended up reading it, it's still pretty unrefined and improvements are welcome. --W.marsh 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In print 

message: "Louisville and Bardstown Turnpike (today's Bardstown Road). The turnpike was first planned as early as 1784, but authorization to begin construction was delayed until 1819, and thwarted then by the Panic of 1819. Funds were finally allocated in 1829, with construction beginning in 1832.
Bardstown Road was originally a turnpike (with a macadamized surface, and tolls were collected at toll gates along the way. The portion of the road nearest to Louisville was free, so as Louisville grew, the first gatehouse moved further out."
This is really good stuff. Whoever wrote this, could you please post any further references here? It would help me a lot for a paper I'm writing on early tollroads (National Road, etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.254.3.116 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bardstown Road as a turnpike 

message: I bumped the article from B-Class to C-Class.  It contains some good prose, but it doesn't have references for the bulk of the article.  Citing the information would go a long way to improving the article's integrity.
There also seem to be too many images breaking the flow of the page.  They also aren't referred to in the article and don't all serve to demonstrate a better understanding of the area.  I propose removing the Shear Artistry, the 2nd Bonnycastle, and the Rubel Ave., pictures from the page unless there are valid mentions of the pictures in the article.  —Ost (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it would have any effect on the integrity of the article... if there are inaccurate or questionable claims, let me know and I'll reference them. But if you just want decorations that no one is ever going to check because nobody challenges the claims... it's not worth the hassle. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute the information in the article, but I have to respectfully disagree that has the integrity to support the information.  It is completely unsourced.  One of Wikipedia's major tenants is WP:VERIFY.  As it explains on WP:5P .  Our articles need sources if we want verifiable articles that users around the world will trust.  As of now, people in the area can support the assertions on the page by maintaining it, but nothing is verified to be fact.  Basically, if these policies aren't followed, pages like this run the risk of being nominated for deletion based on WP:N and WP:V. —Ost (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So nominate it for deletion! Or actually improve the article, rather than whine and nag other people to do it for you. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article deserves deletion.  I was trying to protect it and make it encyclopedic.  I was planning on looking for references and adding them when I found good ones, but with an article with this much information I thought maybe those who worked on it would know some sources immediately.  They could also know of paper sources that I wouldn't easily find online.  I'm sorry I upset you with ; it wasn't meant to be a call for immediate action, but a flag to editors to eventually resolve. —Ost (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was meant to nag other people into doing work you won't or can't... and sadly, it worked. But hopefully I've demonstrated how pointless the little superscript blue numbers are... this article is no more verified than it ever was (in this case, it already was all straight from sources, at least the stuff I just referenced was). It just looks better to people who assess articles not by reading them, but by counting superscript blue numbers. --Movingday29 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree.  With references, I can much more easily go to library and verify.  I admittedly don't get to libraries or read newspapers as frequently as other editors, so I welcome others to step in before me.  I'm sorry my reference flag came across as a nag.  Thank you for your contributions. —Ost (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So now people can more easily do something that editors almost never do. References are a false sense of security, everyone assumes the superscript numbers mean an articles accurate, but the only thing that means an article is accurate is if you actually go and verify the sources, just verifying that there are a bunch of superscript numbers keeps people like you busy, but it doesn't make articles any better. --Movingday29 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Well now there's references. Woopdie-doo. You going to go verify them now, Ost316? --Movingday29 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I appreciate the help.  Your sarcasm is not lost on me, but I'll assume good faith that the sources are good.  I'm not verifying the sources right now, but I'll make an attempt to at some point.  Otherwise, I'm sure another editor will check them, especially if this article can be brought to GA-class. —Ost (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessed