Talk:Construction of the Minnesota State Capitol

Construction of the Minnesota State Capitol was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 7, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Construction of the Minnesota State Capitol was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 8, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Minnesota Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Organized Labour Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Much of the text on "Workers killed and injured during State Capitol construction" was ported from this entry on MNopedia: The Minnesota Encyclopedia under a free Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA license. Please discuss any concerns regarding copyright or other issues with Myotus.
Myotus (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baffle gab1978 First, thank you for your copy-edits and taking on this article! Your changes have greatly improved the readability and composition of the page text. The only changes I would like to ask about is the following sentences in the lead and in the "Selecting the site" sections.

Lead:
Old: While this was the most expensive of the four sites considered for the Capitol, it was the largest, and the Commission concluded that it was the best location for the building.

New: The chosen site was the largest and most-expensive of the four shortlisted sites, and the commission concluded it was the best location for the building.

Selecting the site:
Old: While the costliest of the four sites, it was the largest, leading the Commission to conclude that it was the best location for the building.

New: Wabasha Hill was the largest and costliest of the four sites, leading the commission to conclude it was the best location for the building.

To me the new text reads as if the site was chosen because it was both large and costly. Where the previous text reads it was chosen in spite of it being the costliest because of its large size which is the case. Can the text be modified to reflect that? Myotus (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Myotus:, yes it reads that way to me too; I'll go back and correct the sentences tonight. Thanks for pointing it out, I should have been more careful. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Baffle gab1978 Sorry for not responding. I had reduced my activity for a while. Thank you for all your edits! They all make sence and enhance the quality of the article. Myotus (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went to consider reviewing this GA nomination as one of the older ones in the pipeline but had some questions about its sourcing:

• It currently seems largely reliant on state reports. Is there little secondary source coverage of this construction? If so, that would indicate that this topic is better summarized within its parent article rather than split out just to house primary source detail. Per the general notability guideline, articles require coverage in sources independent from the topic. In this case those would be non-governmental sources.

• What makes MNOpedia reliable? It appears to be user-generated content from the state historical society but not necessarily vetted by historians? Let me know if I missed something there. Same for the placeography.org wiki cited.

• Dissertations are not vetted sources so I recommend removing Marconi.

czar 14:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]