Talk:Burke, Idaho

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 03:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burke, Idaho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burke, Idaho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Burke, Idaho/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 00:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Drown Soda: I will review this article. Some of the comments on Talk:Burke Canyon/GA1 may also apply here. epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Taken from the Burke Canyon review[edit]

  • Lead: nearby - in this context, it should be "near". Or this can be written as, around 300 people lived in Burke Canyon or nearby.
  • Establishment and labor wars: USD$35,000 - Typically it's either just "US$" or "USD". Using both is redundant.
  • Decline and abandonment: As of December 31, 2012 - The associated reference doesn't mention the reference's publication date. Additionally, does this date have to be exact? Would "As of December 2012" work?
  • References: Ref 4, "Hecla Mining - 2012 Exploration Report - Silver Valley", is a primary source. This is OK, but you should preferably note this in the text that it is citing. For instance, "As of December 31, 2012, Hecla reported that it had invested..."
  • References: Ref 9 is a PDF and needs page numbers.
  • Works cited: By National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee on Superfund Site Assessment and Remediation in the Coeur d' Alene River Basin - if this is the author, you can remove the "By".

Assessing this article on its own merits[edit]

Follows below.

Images

Lead Section

  • In 2002, about 300 people lived in or nearby Burke Canyon - Should we mention that no one lives in the town itself anymore? "Ghost town" isn't really self-explanatory. Maybe later in the article, you can mention when the last residents moved out of Burke itself.
  • Burke's geographical location - "Burke's location" should be sufficient unless it is ambiguous what type of location this is.

Establishment and labor wars

  • Beginning in 1884 - "In 1884" should do because they discovered lead and silver then. Unless you meant to say the mining began in 1884, in which you should say that instead.
  • known as the Tiger Mine - you can just say "the Tiger Mine"
  • In 1887, the Northern Pacific Railway improved upon the rail - I'm not sure what this means. Was there a railroad improvement project?
  • The town was serviced with trains - In U.S. parlance, the town was serviced by trains, not with.
  • The limited space purportedly forced businesses - One source says that. Another source, Bill Dunphy, contradicts this. But the current phrasing makes it seem like the awning withdrawal was the popular opinion. Unless the Northwest Center for Public Health Practice says that this is the popular opinion, you should just attribute the statement to them.
  • though according to Bill Dunphy, a town resident, this was an exaggeration - This should optimally be a new sentence.
  • Why is Dunphy's name important, anyway? Should you just say "though according to a town resident"?
  • Beginning in 1891 - again, you should just say "In 1891" because you actually have "began" later on in the sentence.
  • 1 mile - the kilometer distance should also be included, using convert.
  • killing six people. The U.S. Army forced an end to the strike. - This is unsourced.

Development and further unrest

  • Subsequent widening of the railroad in 1906 forced the hotel to devise a unique solution given the limited space: The hotel, which straddled the main street and the creek, was modified so that the railroad could run through the hotel lobby; it featured an enclosed walkway constructed above for hotel guests to move between the two halves of the hotel without worry about the train or the weather - this is a run-on. I figure this can be split in 2 or even 3 sentences.
  • General comment - I think you can use some of these references for the strikes to fill in the unsourced portions of the Burke Canyon article.
  • The word plagued may not be objective. What about "affected" or something similarly neutral?
  • which would become - for consistency with the rest of the sentence, use "which became"

Decline and abandonment

  • In recent years - "recent" is relative and may get dated.

Climate; Notable people

No issues.

References

  • Note b Distances from the Montana and British Columbia borders are approximate; by road, however, the distance traveled to reach these borders from Burke is longer., and the associated text in the lead, could use a source to Google Maps or another mapping service.
  • Ref 23 "Strange as it seems: Narrow town" is cartoon. Although the other sources back up the statement about the railroad through the hotel, this reference doesn't make clear whether these claims are true, since it's a cartoon. Does this cartoon have a reputation for illustrating facts?
  • Ref 30 "BURKE 2 ENE, IDAHO (101272)" should be lowercased. Also, this reference isn't dead.

Putting on hold for 7 days. epicgenius (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drown Soda: Pinging, in case you have not seen this. epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks again; I did a one-over on this a couple of days ago, and am in the process of making edits right now. The one response I do have in regard to the Warsaw Daily News source is that the cartoon appears to be a supplementary illustration for the "Strange as it Seems" column. There is a small block of text below explaining what makes the town "strange." While it is a ostensibly a novelty "did you know...?"-sort of column, its publication in the newspaper leads me to believe it is a legitimate source. Both the text and the cartoon are attributed to a John Hix, so it appears to me that Hix was in charge of researching bits of trivia and then supplementing them with a cartoon. In any event, I will finish edits here soon. Let me know what you think (about the Hix source, or the article at large). --Drown Soda (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange as it seems, Strange as It Seems seems to be a reliable source: every published fact be verified by a minimum of three sources. OK, so never mind that. epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked the references, and they all seem to support the content they are citing, so I'll pass this article. epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burke,_Idaho&oldid=1206481536"