HistoryLink is uniquely influential in Washington history. It is also a
user generated encyclopedia which tries to use quality control and
Here are some options -
1. Write the author who wrote that Historylink article. Verify the
quality of the information through her.
2. Develop the Wikipedia article on Historylink. If you can confirm some
quality control, then put that into its Wikipedia article. Checking your
source seems appropriate.
About your book from 1906 - it seems like the reviewers are taking for
granted that this is an outdated book of poor quality. To what extent is
that true? That book probably does not merit its own wiki article but maybe
you could make a note on the talk page about its quality. Is there anything
thorough about it? To what extent is the ideal source for the purpose for
which you are using it?
I think the questions you are getting are fair. They are not necessarily
blocks to progress, and seem like a sincere wish to check quality.
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:16 AM, SounderBruce <sounderbruce(a)gmail.com>
I've been working on the FAC for Arlington, Washington
for a few days now, and hit a bit of a roadblock in its source review.
Specifically, the "high quality" sources clause from the FA criteria. I'm
struggling to justify the use of HistoryLink as a "high quality" source, as
well as early 20th century books that are used to cite specific details of
the city's history (the name and occupation of its first mayor, the founder
of Haller City, etc.).
This is my first real attempt at a FAC, so I'm a bit nervous about how to
*Bruce Englehardt / SounderBruce*
Wikimedia-Cascadia mailing list
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia