Talk:Joseph Priestley House/Archive 1

message: *I removed the information about "chemical library". I noticed that was sourced to the ACS website - I feel that is a less reliable source than the biographies I have read for the Joseph Priestley page and the information from the House itself. I am going to add supporting notes from the biographies - I just haven't had time yet! Awadewit | talk 05:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact checking

message: The article is nicely written and would merit "B" rating given to it recently, in terms of its language and completeness if it was a regular NRHP site.  However, the site is also a National Historic Landmark, and needs some development based on the multiple available sources for NHL information.  Criteria for quality rating of NHL articles is under discussion at WP:NRHP, but the proposal is that an article is stub if it does not meet Start criteria: (CURRENT STATUS INDICATED)
#a short intro is written that is factually and grammatically correct. DONE
#NRHP infobox is included. It may appear late in the article, if the article is started by another infobox, or it may appear just following another infobox.  DONE
#NHL designation date is included within the NRHP infobox.  NOT SURE DONE
#NHL summary source is referenced as source for NHL designation date.  NOPE DONE
#NRHP inventory/nomination text or NHL nomination text is linked (if available). NOPE DONE
#accompanying NRHP photo set is linked (if available)  NOPE Not available on-line from National Park Service.  There are 3 photos at the Pennsylvania state source for the NRHP document for the house, not sure how to describe (are these NPS photos or not?) and/or to use them Photo 1, Photo 2, and Photo 3.
#that any "official site" of the owner or controlling organization, if any, is included as an External link."   NOT SURE YES
#that External links section exists and includes at least one link.  NOT SURE YES
#that See Also section exists and points to List of NHLs in the state.  NOT SURE Skip this one, though List of National Historic Landmarks in Pennsylvania is making progress....
It would be easy to edit the article to meet these criteria, but for now I am downrating it to Stub as not all criteria are met.  Please feel free to correspond about these sources or the criteria.  Nice work on the article, already.  doncram 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's really funny - a set of criteria that doesn't include anything significant about content? :) Something seems a little off there... Awadewit | talk 02:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And going by WP:ASSESS, this is a B-class article regardless of anyone's project requirements. Daniel Case 02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To Awadewit et al.: You are free to join ongoing discussion in Talk of WP:NRHP about what should be standards for articles about NHLs for them to have WP:NRHP support.  I have a proposal there that is intended to encourage use of the good, official sources that are available on-line for most NHLs.  The proposal is a bit lop-sided that way, it is meant to be a little provocative.  You do seem to have three other good sources for this article, but as a general rule I observe that articles on NHLs suffer from the absence, if they do not draw on and cite the NRHP text and photos documents, in particular, and also the NHL summary.  Without seeing what those sources provide on the Joseph Priestley House (and I can't right at this very moment because a NPS server is down for maintenance) I can't identify all that this article is currently missing by not having sourced from them.  But Ruhrfisch mentions below that he has the NRHP text and that it has useful information for developing the article.  Also, I infer there is confusion in your collective understanding to date of what is NRHP designation and what is NHL designation.  The 1965 date reported for NRHP shown in the infobox is incorrect, as the NRHP system was not created until 1966.  As Awadewit observed in his edit note putting that error in there, "shouldn't the year (in the infobox) match the year in the article"?  Yes, well, my specific requirements would have had the NHL designation date included in the infobox, in addition to having the NRHP date show, to avoid such confusion.  Daniel Case, in some of his other article-writing, has enjoyed my support by my locating and putting references in for him and others to draw on.  He acknowledged elsewhere--on my talk page-- that the sources that I mention should in fact be included in this Joseph Priestly House article for it to go through GA or FA review.  It is my personal view that it is useful to use the WP:NRHP assessment process to encourage their use sooner rather than later.  I would prefer not to be in the position of opposing GA status on articles because they did not incorporate these basic documents relating to the official designation of NHLs, without having tried to communicate my views that using these sources matter, beforehand.  Cheers, doncram 06:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help on this article. I don't know enough about NHL at large to contribute to such a discussion. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is settling down now.  I do see that the 3 references for NRHP and NHL matters are not in the same system as your Notes and Bibliography referencing format, sorry about that but I don't know exactly how to remedy it, either.  Better to have the sources in, nailing down facts on NRHP/NHL matters, even if the reference listing is not in perfectly consistent format.  I'll leave it to someone else to add the NRHP document describing the Northumberland Historic District as another source, if it can support some additional perspective about the house versus the area it is in, in the article. doncram 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality rating of article for WP:NRHP

message: Do you think we should add material on:
:*JP in America
:*History of the area
:*History of the renovations (if we can find it)
What are other people's thoughts? Awadewit | talk 09:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those all sound good to me. There is a Friends of Joseph Priestley House that does a lot of the volunteer work there and puts on special events and demos in the lab. I also plan to add the info from the NRHP nomination form (lots, acreage, neigboring streets, dimensions of the house itself, etc.). Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an NRHP entry, it's always good to have some on that last one. I have always loved being able to find information on the evolution of a building and incorporate it into the article. Daniel Case 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't live near the house - do they have any published information about the renovation we could cite? There is more in the guidebook I have that I can cite, but not much. Awadewit | talk 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found one newspaper reference to the renovations, but have to get to a library that has the newspaper to see what it says (database only had title). Since it is a PHMC property, I would imagine there was at least one official Pennsylvania press release on the renovation, but have not yet searched the official state site. I am in a FLC that has me pretty busy (I also want to finish reading the JP article before weighing in on the FAC), but will see if I can search the state site in the next three hours or so. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very busy writing my dissertation at the moment, but I will add in more information on JP in America in the next few weeks or so (let's not pressure ourselves into hour-by-hour timelines!). It would be wonderful if you two could take over the rest of the material. Awadewit | talk 07:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material to add 

message: I have copied this paragraph from the lead. It's tone is not yet encyclopedic. Let's work out what needs to go in the article from it rather than confusing the reader, shall we?
:*"There are actually two Joseph Priestly Houses listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Northumberland.  One, at 472 Priestly Avenue, between Wallis Avenue and Hanover Street, was built in 1794 and listed on the Register in 1966. The other, at 100 King Street, was built in 1820, and listed in 1981. (Are they both part of the current property?)  The former (or both together?) was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1966."
I looked at these sources and I don't see what Doncram is referring to as the second Priestley house built in 1820. What am I missing? Awadewit | talk 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ok, but a discussion of the library built later by possible descendants does not really belong in this article, right? Awadewit | talk 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would list it as a dab of some sort at the top of the page For the 1820 structure sometimes known as the Priestly House, see the Priestley-Forsyth Memorial Library, but otherwise no. Just to clarify, it was built as an inn, and purchased by Priestley's great grandson who used it as a home and medical office about 1880. Made into a library about 1920 and still is - see official library website. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 19:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not previously know of that Pennsylvania source for all of its NRHP listings.  Thanks.  I've created stub articles for the Dr. Joseph Priestley House (alternative name for Priestley-Forsyth Memorial Library) and also for Northumberland Historic District which includes both of the Joseph Priestley Houses.  The main source for the Historic District, a NRHP document now referenced in its article, is another potential source for this article on the Joseph Priestley House, as it describes it and its renovations separately.  It also describes this house relative to its environs.  Perhaps someone else can review that source.  I think it would be appropriate for this article to refer to the Northumberland Historic District article, if only to say that this Priestley House is a "gem" of the district, as it is described. doncram 00:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, good work! Just so you know, about 1998 the museum started some renovations including reconstruction of a carriage barn and other outbuildings (know from records) and some other work on the house and lab. The barn was finished in 1999. Other work has continued since, but we are looking for reliable sources and more details on that. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have made the request. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have received the photocopied form, which is more complete, but need some time to read it all and digest it. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 17:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving paragraph from lead

message: As soon as Joseph Priestley is FA, I'm going to send a request to the JP House for permission to use some of their photos. :) Awadewit | talk 09:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've emailed them now. Awadewit | talk 12:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks! Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *We are now in discussions. It might work out! They seemed impressed with our article and Joseph Priestley. Awadewit | talk 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wonderful news! I know the Friends of Joseph Priestley House publish a newsletter a few times a year which could be a primary source for some basic assertions (date of completion of renovations, for example). Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ok. They will allow us to use a couple of the photos, but not under GFDL, unfortunately. What do you want to do? Awadewit | talk 23:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry to be slow in responding here - busy in real life and doing some spam cleanup here. What license do they want to release the photos under? Creative Commons? If it is not GFDL or CC I am not sure it is something we can use on Wikipedia. It has been a while since I was inside the house. I seem to recall photogaphy was allowed, but could be mistaken or the policy could have changed since I was there. I found no policy on the website, and see there that the house will be closed from Jan 1 to Mar 10, so if you want me to try and get there and get some photos twere best done quickly. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is not under any kind of free license. I was afraid that wouldn't be usable. Well, we'll just have to go with what we have. It would be great if you could get more pictures, but if that is not feasible at this time, it just isn't. I was hoping to use images of Priestley's scientific instruments. Awadewit | talk 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Whatever you can get will be good. Awadewit | talk 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I emailed the JP House back and said we couldn't use their photos unless they were under the GFDL or CC license. We are now in discussions again. Awadewit | talk 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, thanks - could you also ask them if photography is allowed in the house? If not, perhaps they might be agreeable to letting someone (i.e. me) take some photos for the article. If needed, I could bring my tripod and avoid flash photography. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 19:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *These are beautiful! Thanks so much! See what you think of the placement, etc. Awadewit | talk 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, glad you like them. The placement is fine - I made some minor tweaks to the captions (one globe, original burning lens is 5 feet tall). I have a photo of the bed in the bedroom, but it is so dark I did not upload it. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 12:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I made some changes and am about done with my additions to the article. Feel free to revert or tweak as needed. Here is what I changed and some questions.
#In Location I thought the sentence "Following the Seven Years' War (1756–63) and the migration of Native American tribes westward, German, Scots-Irish, and other European immigrants settled in the central Susquehanna Valley." was incomplete and added two sentences that the land that became Northumberland was only purchased from the Iroquois in the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, and that Northumberland was evacuated in the Big Runaway in 1778 during the American Revolutionary War and not really resettled until 1784. Not sure if this is in Hirsch - the NRHP nomination for the Historic District was the most concise source here. 
#::It was not in Hirsch - this is definitely better. Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The material I have is mostly on Priestley, not on his sons. Are you sure the colony you are referring to isn't the one I already described, with Coleridge and Co.? Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I will also check on this - it is one of those things I have run into reading about completely different material, so I need to do some digging. My best recollection is that it was land in  what became Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Probably worth a sentence or two on the sons. Here is a link to a history of Sullivan County that mentions Joseph Priestley Jr. purchasing land there on Loyalsock Creek  and this more modern ref on it , as well as this ref . There is an article in Now and Then (a historical society journal from Muncy, Pennsylvania on "A bit of history : Priestley, asylum and pantisocracy." that I can look up if you want. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Schofield says that it is not entirely clear whether the Coleridge scheme was part of the Cooper scheme. There are scholarly articles that argue it is and articles that argue it is not. We should add ambiguity to the page, I think. Awadewit | talk 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree that Priestley's legacy should be mentioned. Does Dickinson College have sort of link to Priestley? They also have an award named for him. See Joseph Priestley#Legacy. Awadewit | talk 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I will see what I can find out, don't know what the link is now. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 19:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dickinson College has been giving the medal out since 1952  and has a collection of Priestley's apparatus purchased from a friend of his just after JP's death, including "the Burning Glass Priestley used to discover oxygen"  Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More tweaks

message: Here are my initial thoughts on a "Priestley in America" section:
*Lands in New York - feted
*Philadelphia - disliked city; opulent Quakers
*Refused professorship of chemistry
*Northumberland land dealings
*US knew Priestley as a political reformer, defender of the American revolutionaries, and friend of Franklin
*Helped found First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia 
*William Cobbett attacked Priestley
*Tried to found Northumberland Academy [less sure on this one]
*Correspondence with Jefferson regarding education; dedicated General History of the Christian Church to him
*Summary of scientific achievements
*Summary of religious publications
*Death
Thoughts on this? Awadewit | talk 04:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I know he corresponded with Thomas Jefferson and dedicated a book to him. I would at least mention his land holdings (know it is already in the article). Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only other thing I can think of here is how did he afford the trip, building a house described as a mansion, and purchasing what Monty Pyhton would call "huge tracts of land" (especially when many of those who wanted to join him couldn't even afford the trip)? Also (not really this section) but what do you want to include in the legacy section? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Priestley's financial situation is a mess - Mary Priestley's relatives lent them money, but the repayment of it is a confused affair. I'm not sure this tangle is that relevant. Awadewit | talk 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copied the material from Joseph Priestley as a start, but some things will need to be changed and more details on his American publications added. Awadewit | talk 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all you work on this - it looks good as a start. I do not think there needs to be anything detailed on finances, I just was curious and thought perhaps there was a simple answer (i.e. perhaps his book sales made him wealthy, or his patron or friends financed his emigration, or he had insurance or somehow was paid for his house the mob destroyed, etc.). I am not sure there needs to be a separate legacy section - the ACS Priestley medal could be mentioned with the other ACS items (I think the house has a copy of the medal for display). If the ACS medal is at the end of ACS, then the Dickinson connection could either follow the ACS Priestley Medal (Dickinson awards another Priestley medal, then mention they have many of his personal items) or perhaps after his death (describing what happened to his effects, then mention their medal). The chapel could be in with the Historic District (it is a contributing structure), or perhaps in with his contributions to Unitarianism in America. The Priestley bridge could be mentioned at the end of the Historic District. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priestley in America 

message: I've just added two sources by Richardson. Does anyone have access to these? I feel they may be available locally. I would have to get them through interlibrary loan. Awadewit | talk 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately they are not in the libraries I have easy access to. If I were to make a photo pilgrimage (see above), I could also see if the Priestley Forsyth library has these. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to get them through interlibrary loan first. That's easier for everybody. Awadewit | talk 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the Northumberland library does not have either (!), if its online catalog is correct. The Historical Society wants $25 for Volume 32, so ILL is best. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eek. Already requested. Awadewit | talk 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: In the article there is the phrase about the Northumberland Historic District: "There are 163 contributing and 73 non-contributing structures in the district, including one other building already on the NRHP" with a note that this was unclear. The boundaries of the historic district are chosen so as to maximize the relative number of historic buildings within it - if these meet the NRHP guidelines, then they are considered "contributing structures" to the historic district. There are also buildings which do not meet the guidelines - they may be newer than the original structure with which they are associated, or newer than the 1930s, or they may be historic but have had modern architectural modifications (siding, additions, etc) that render the buildings ineligible under the guidelines. I think the word structure is used just because garages etc. count (so the 1926 Pond Museum on the grounds of the Priestley House is not a contributing structure as it is not original to the house). 
Basically within a NRHP Historic District there are three types of structures: 1) those already on the NRHP (here there are two - this Priestley House and the Dr. Joseph Priestley House, the 1820s inn / house which is now the borough library); 2) those which meet the guidelines and are contributing structures to the district (technically the first type is contributing too), and 3) those that do not meet the guidelines and are not contributing. Since this is not clear in the article, any suggestions on how to make it clearer are welcome. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not even sure we need this detail about the number of structures. I would be tempted to just delete it and cut the Gordian knot. Awadewit | talk 10:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I took out the numbers of structures, but did not remove your comment on it being unclear. Since it is a contributing structure to the district and is home to the descendant congregation of the Unitarian services Priestley held in the house, I thought it was OK to add the Priestley Memorial Chapel. The chapel has a detailed website, here is a link to the page where Priestley is listed as first minister . The chapel is in the the Historic District form, so I used that ref. Should the chapel's website be added to the refs too? Is it OK that the chapel is in? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 15:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic District question 

message: *A contributing structure in the district is the 1834 Joseph Priestley Memorial Chapel, home to a Unitarian Universalist congregation which considers Priestley its founder. - This phrase "contributing structure" is still vague, I think. Awadewit | talk 10:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually it is very common in academic circles to have a "Bibliography" that includes more works than the ones cited in the notes. That is why this list of works is called a "Bibliography" and not a "Works cited". A "Works cited" would be exactly what you are asking for - a list of the works used in the article. I like to give readers a little bit more than that - helpful citations on the topic. I hope to read the Garrett article someday, but it is not totally necessary for the writing of the article. One function that I think wikipedia can serve is a place for "first research". A good bibliography in an article is one way that it can do that. Awadewit | talk 01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for response. But that is not my experience in academia.  I would generally equate "Bibliography" with "References", which are definitely only the references used in the paper.  Seems like this Garrett item would belong in a "Suggested other reading" list.  Not sure how the crime of "padding the bibliography" is defined, whether that is listing something which is not actually read/used in a paper.  I guess this depends on how you define "Bibliography".  If it was clearly an Annotated bibliography that would be different, but this is not, so as a reader I would assume it is of the "reference list at the end of an article or book" kind of Bibliography.  I don't mean to have an argument, i don't feel strongly about this, was just pointing out something small that I assumed was an oversight, your reply is that it is not an oversight. doncram (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *What field do you work in? In literary studies (my field) authors often list all of the books they consulted in a "Bibliography" and the books they quote in the "Notes" (be they endnotes or footnotes). While this can lead to the "padding" crime to which you refer, it is generally viewed as helpful to other researchers, who are looking for a set of books on the topic. I actually really dislike separating the "Bibliography" into two lists based on the distinction of what is included in the wikipedia article (too arbitrary for my taste). For someone interested in the sources, one list is far more efficient and since that who is going to be looking at the list, why not make it easy for them? Awadewit | talk 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Peer reviewed chemistry articles only include sources that are actually cited in the article, however there are usually very general statements early in the article with many different sources referenced, so things that might be additonal reading here get cited there. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Peer reviewed business research articles are as Ruhrfish describes, AFAIK.  A single sentence, perhaps at the end of the article, could state that Garrett, ____, and ____ are additional sources available.  That would facilitate a reader/editor's future entry into expanding the article.  Otherwise, Garrett and others could effectively be hidden: it is pretty hard for an interested reader/editor to figure out which sources are available and have value not yet tapped, although you have gone through some trouble to identify those sources.  Thanks for your replies already. doncram (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think this article is closer to a peer-reviewed literary or historical article/book (which is what I am familiar with) than a chemistry or business article, at least topic-wise. If readers want to know the sources used, they can look at the "Notes" - that is their purpose. I don't think this is difficult at all. Awadewit | talk 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loose ends 

message: For the Joseph Priestley House, it seems relevant to show a partial view of a state map, with its location relative to Philadelphia, and the Susquehanna River, and the railroad line.  The state level view, with railroad lines, is available in the Penn Railway image here, but that image is too busy.
An inset could show the house location relative to the river, the former canal / the railway, and Northumberland.  But i don't know where to start in actually drawing one.  I'd like to learn how to draw a map that can be used to illustrate an article like this. doncram (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruhrfisch is "the man" when it comes to maps. I am sure that he can help you. Dincher (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had originally asked Kmusser to do a map, but he never responded. If Ruhrfisch can do one, all the better. S/he is familiar with the article's contents. Awadewit | talk 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will work on the map - I think I may base it on the eastern half of :Image:Pennsylvania Locator Map.PNG (which I made from US Census maps). That has county boundaries though, which are inaccurate for Priestley's lifetime, so I may just make it with the rivers shown (no counties). Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it would be interesting to make the map with the county borders as they were. Interesting to me at least. But I really like maps! Dincher (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I say we graciously accept whatever he makes. :) I don't want to send him to the county historical records office and force him to trace out county lines on an etch-and-sketch in the dark of night! Awadewit | talk 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Puts Etch-A-Sketch away, switches off flashlight, and sighs) OK. Actually, I do not have a good source for the county borders then, and it was a time of flux in borders (Lycoming County was formed from Northumberland in 1795, Centre County was partly formed from it in 1800), so the map would be different depending on when it was made for. I think I can get the rivers and streams OK and fairly quickly. I need to look at the sources I have for the closeup map and am not sure how doable that is for me. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that might be the case. I say we go with the rivers and the towns (I know that not even the states had firm borders at this time). Awadewit | talk 04:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pennsylvania's borders were set with the purchase of the Erie Triangle in 1792. (Aside to Dincher: I thnk I may someday do this shifting county borders map and a zillion others like it for the development of PA counties list we've talked about). Here is a brief overview of how I make some of my maps for anyone who is interested. I looked at the Census website and the detail map seems possible, but I will do the towns and streams for now. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I think it's great. The only thing I would recommend is removing the word "Pennsylvania" from it. Some people might think that one of the rivers is named that. The word is just kind of floating there right now and caption makes it clear that the map is of Pennsylvania. Another alternative is to make the word "Pennsylvania" bigger so that this confusion cannot arise. Awadewit | talk 11:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for your kind words. I removed "PENNSYLVANIA" and added 10s to the mile scale and 20s to the kilometer scale. I don't see how to make the inset on this map - will make a quick map of Northumberland, the rivers and railroad and upload it here too. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I switched the infobox over to one that could display two maps and added the first map and a second based on doncram's suggestion. Comments on it are also welcome, but I was bold and added the second map so I could see how the whole layout looked. Hope this is OK, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *In the Northumberland map, the railroad along the West Branch Susquehanna River is NOT the North Shore Railroad. It is the Norfolk Southern, and the railroad on the south side of the North Branch (lower right corner, barely in the map) is of course the Candaian Pacific. Should these be labled on the map for clarity? I labeled Packer Island (despite it not being mentioned in the article) to make it clearer that the North Branch of the river is split by the island here. I can see labeling the NS, but the CP has relatively little room for a label. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I like them. Too bad we have to have the invasive infobox, too. Awadewit | talk 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Per Ruhrfisch's comment on my talk page, I have removed the infobox as a test. What do we think? (I like it). We can rearrange the other images later, if we decide to go with it. Awadewit | talk 03:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am OK without it - the test removed a couple refs and broke at least one. I think we should also make sure the all of info from the box is in the article - can add the  for latitude and longitude, add elevation in location, perhaps have to add the dates for NHL and NRHP, add thr NRHP # to a note maybe. I'd have to check these and on the rest. I would add the stamp portrait back in too, if the box stays out. I am also OK without the second map - not sure it adds that much. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do people really want the coordinates? I'll rearrange the page again and add the stamp portrait back. *sigh* Awadewit | talk 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I like coordinates in general as they are wikilinked to various maps for those interested. I also think if we are going to justify removing the infobox then we should make sure all the info that was in it before is also in the article now, including the coordinates. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is fine - thanks for checking out the infobox and taking care of all of that. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Glad to do it - I just tweaked the image layout so that the pictures do not "overlap" except for the two maps. See what you think. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 13:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I usually try to avoid having images be in two sections, but as there aren't a lot of solutions here, I suppose I will have to accept this one. :) Awadewit | talk 21:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Might be a bit busy. People might wonder what is under the inset. Awadewit | talk 06:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, the corner version is not any better. Oh well, if there is a major push to go back to an infobox, this at least takes up less space than two maps. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 12:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed the 3rd map is too busy. Dincher (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My 2 cents: I like the 3rd map with inset.  It carries more info per square inch.  Map people like me can click on it to enlarge and enjoy it;  does use up less space for non-map people....  doncram (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Map part 4 looks the best. I like that the inset is in the corner. Dincher (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think the inset looks worse in the corner because the towns are all bunched up against it. Sorry to disagree! Awadewit | talk 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *As long as the two separate maps in the article are OK, I am fine with keeping both in - this was more an experiment and I learned some aout insets that should be helpful for future maps. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map for illustration 

message: After having gone through FAC so many times, I developed a little checklist. Although it is laborious, it makes FAC much easier. See what you think. 
*Peer review
*Copy edit
:*One copy edit done by Awadewit | talk  —Preceding comment was added at 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Usually I just do the copy edit myself. Between the two of us, we can probably fix all of the major problems and the PR and FAC will find the minor problems (those reviewers can serve as our "fresh eyes"). I don't think we have any major prose problems here. It is just that I like to sit down and focus on copy editing every once in a while. Awadewit | talk 03:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, I like printing out a version and going over it with a red pen. I also would do this better if I did not look at the article for a day or two, to let it be "fresh" (or fresher). It looks like you are done editing the article for now, so I may double check what was in the box and add the coords back. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 05:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh, I agree. This is usually a multi-week process for me. Awadewit | talk 05:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good. I think all the infobox material is back in the article in some form. If there were a third a paragraph in the lede, perhaps it could have more on the ACS activities and mention the National Historic Landmark and National Historic Chemical Landmark status. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 05:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I revised the lead. I added information on the ACS and on the NHL. I think the NHCL is less important. That can wait for the article. Awadewit | talk 07:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Looks very nice, thanks. Agree NHCL is not as important and general ACS and NHL. Thanks, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 13:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Awadewit, I see three options. 1) I know a couple of editors who have said they would be glad to return favors, so I could ask one or both to do a peer review. One has been very helpful on reviewing my creek articles, but I have not seen reviews by the other one. 2) We could submit it for Good Article, which would be a review of sorts. There is a backlog there, but my guess is a well-sourced article like this would probably be reviewed (and passed) fairly quickly. 3) We could go straight to FAC after we finish the checklist. For the third option, I note that this talk page is 89 kb (the article is 39 kb) and I think we have discussed every major change on it. We have also been very fortunate to have input from Daniel Case, doncram and Dincher on several topics (hope I am not forgetting anyone). I have only skipped GA once on the way to FA. While I am near certain this is ready for FAC (after the fine polish of the checklist), I think it would be good to get one more set of eyes to look it over before FAC. Which would you prefer - that I ask for another peer review or GAN? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found GA reviews, in general, to be more praiseworthy than helpful and they have a huge backlog (some articles have waited over two months). I rarely skip GA on the way to FA, but I am beginning to feel more comfortable doing so (after fourteen FAs, I think I'm getting the hang of it). I feel like I have currently tapped out my favors at the moment, so if you could call in one, that would be helpful, because I feel like we still need one more good review. After that, we can finish off the checklist. Awadewit | talk 16:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben MacDui has been very helpful in reviewing my creek articles - I will ask him. If he is unable, I will ask the other person I have in mind. I have been trying to help at GAN, but am a slow reviewer. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Wait! I have finally received Joseph Priestley in America, 1794-1804, the exhibition catalogue, from interlibrary loan. It looks like it has a lot of good stuff. *sigh* I am reading it now. Awadewit | talk 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben MacDui is currently busy and may not get to the article peer review until the first weekend in February. I can ask him to wait until you are done with the new source (no hurry on your part either). Unfortunatley User:Neutralhomer, whom I made a map for, has retired. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 21:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: February is fine with me. I have two articles at FAC right now as it is and another about to go. I'm a little FA factory. :) Awadewit | talk 06:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Soon "FA" will just mean "from Awadewit" - I left a note on MacDui's talk page that we would let him know when you were done adding from the new source. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 13:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think I got all of the interesting stuff out of that book. The Unitarianism book is full of stuff, but I think I should just stop with the "Introduction". Everything else is probably too detailed for this article. Let me know what you think. We probably need to copy edit, since I just kind of threw things into the article. Sorry about that. Awadewit | talk 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I knew that the chapel was built by a grandson of Joseph - it is in the chapel's history on its web site (which we could probably add as a ref or possibly as an external link). That made me think of all the other things I know that aren't in the article yet, so I will try to make a list of those. First I am going to reread the article and make notes. Stopping now on the Unitarianism book is fine with me. I have few things from the book I have, and will check them. More to follow. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC checklist 

message: Ruhrfisch, I thought you would enjoy this comment in the Unitarianism book I am looking at. There is a section in the introduction that argues Priestley's influence on American Unitarianism has not been fully appreciated. It states: "Even a visit to the Joseph Priestley House and Museum today, located in Northumberland, Pennsylvania, is likely to leave the visitor with a less-than-whole understanding of Priestley's religion and the role he played in the course of the nation's religious history." (10) Awadewit | talk 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much - I agree that the House and Museum emphasizes the scientist side of Priestley over the religious and political sides. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Awesome. We should add it as video-media to the commons. :) Awadewit | talk 08:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting comment 

message: I archived the peer review, since the WP:PR page is broken, due to too many reviews being listed. I hope you don't mind. We can always start a second one or have other reviewers post their comments here. Awadewit | talk 02:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Thanks for doing that, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review