Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Powder House Island/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [1].

Powder House Island

Nominator(s): jp×g 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an island that simply couldn't stop exploding. When I first created it, it was a tiny little geostub with a funny name, but when I got access to better sources, I figured out that there was a whole litany of historical drama centering on it. I even managed to find some halfway-decent images. I have never made a featured article nomination before, so I'm not quite sure what to expect, but hopefully the explosion isn't audible from Cleveland. jp×g 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are freely licensed. I fixed some of the licensing on Commons. (t · c) buidhe 08:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from Sdkb

Hi JPxG! Skimming the article, here are some initial thoughts:

That's all for now. This is certainly a niche topic, but it's always amazing how much information there ends up being when you dig hard enough, and this is testament to that. Best of luck with this nomination! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll get to it. I have never done one of these before -- the typical way people do it with GA reviews is to just leave responses to each bulletpoint under the bulletpoint, so I'll do that here as well (let me know if you'd prefer I leave them all below in one block). The stuff I haven't responded to, I'll get to in the morning. jp×g 10:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

I will take a look later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Sorry, I seem to have forgotten about this. Surprisingly no one said anything so I just didn't realize for two weeks.
Lead:
  • ", in southeast Michigan." - Is it worth mentioning the country, especially given its proximity to Canada?
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It was constructed in the late 1880s by the Dunbar & Sullivan Company in a successful attempt to circumvent an 1880 court order forbidding the company from storing explosives on nearby Fox Island during their dredging of the Livingstone Channel." - I would suggest splitting this into two sentences. I get what it's saying but this currently reads as unwieldy to me.
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the area of the island?
    • The area of the island itself isn't reliably documented; the closest thing I have is the size of the parcel containing the island. This is 0.91 acres, but if you look at the county's website you can see that the parcel is slightly larger than the island. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In 1906, 20 short tons (18,000 kg) of the island's dynamite exploded" - I'd also reword this sentence, given that "In 1906" and "20 short tons" are numerals that are very close together. However, I recognize it may be a little hard to rephrase this.
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " owned by the State of Michigan. " - State government of Michigan?
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Department of Natural Resources'" - I presume state government (as opposed to the national government), right?
    • This and the above thing made clearer (now just says "owned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, managed by its Wildlife Division as part of the Pointe Mouillee State Game Area, and accessible to the public for hunting and camping"). jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
  • " Powder House Island is in Wayne County, and is contained within Grosse Ile Township" - In general it may be useful to mention the state once more in the body. Which leads me to this point: currently, the comma is unnecessary since the second half of the sentence isn't a standalone clause, but if you added "Michigan" after "Wayne County" (i.e. "Powder House Island is in Wayne County, Michigan, and is contained...", then it's no longer unnecessary.
    • Made some changes for clarity's sake which I think address this. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Its coordinates are 42°06′26″N 83°08′09″W[1];" - I don't think you need to cite the exact coordinates inline unless it's particularly controversial. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure we need the coordinates in the prose at all; if the coordinates do need to be cited, they should go after the semicolon.
    • Fixed the refpunct thing, although I would also be fine with only including the coordinates in the infobox/title bar. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " closer to Lake Erie than to Lake St. Clair, " - Which are relatively to the south and north, respectively?
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and around 200 ft (0.04 mi; 60 m) from the water border with Canada" - In this case, I'd definitely include the fact that the island is in the U.S.
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Bois Blanc Island" - Still in Michigan? I presume the other islands to the north, west, and south are also in Michigan, but I'm asking since the border with Ontario is to the east.
    • Fixed (I had somehow messed up and linked to the Michiganian Bois Blanc Island in Lake Huron, rather than the Canadian island in the Detroit River). jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (and takes around five minutes to traverse on foot)" - This parenthetical is unwieldy in its current location. Perhaps this should be moved to after the description of the dimensions. (On a side note, it takes less than a minute for me to go 200 feet, but that's irrelevant here.)
    • Removed (that source was also giving an impossible figure for the size of the island, so I think they made a typo). jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " gave its elevation" - Above sea level?
    • Fixed. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: In case you didn't notice the above comments. (t · c) buidhe 12:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Took a crack at it, what do you think? jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this.
Background and first explosion:
  • "In the late 19th century, the Dunbar & Sullivan Company had a number of government contracts" - Did they bid for them and get the contracts, or did the government just designate it?
    If I ever get around to writing Dunbar & Sullivan Company it may be possible to glean some information about the bidding process for that contract -- it seems most likely to me that it was a competitive contract, but I can't say for sure (none of the sources go into much detail about it).
  • "The resultant shock wave destroyed all structures on Fox Island, leaving a crater 60 ft (18 m) wide and 16 ft (4.9 m) deep, shattered the windows of nearby houses, and was clearly audible in St. Clair some 60 mi (97 km) to the north" - I think this should be reworded or split into two sentences. "Leaving...shattered...and was audible" are not consistent verb forms. Unless you meant to say this as a list with semicolons: "The resultant shock wave destroyed all structures on Fox Island, leaving a crater 60 ft (18 m) wide and 16 ft (4.9 m) deep; shattered the windows of nearby houses; and was clearly audible in St. Clair some 60 mi (97 km) to the north." Then again this may be better as two sentences anyway.
    Good idea. Done.
Injunction and second explosion
  • "In March 1880, an injunction was issued by the Wayne County chancery court in the case of Walter Crane v. Charles F. Dunbar et al., forbidding Dunbar and Daniel B. Reaume (the operators of the company) from "storing nitroglycerine or any other explosive material on Fox Island"" - First, what was the case about? Can it be briefly explained? Second, I think the parenthetical phrase could be better integrated into the sentence by, I suppose, rewording the sentence so the parentheses are not necessary.
    It was regarding the explosion on Fox Island in 1879, which is about as much as I can get out of the sources here and on
    Fox Island (Detroit River)
    . Phrasing re: the operators has been fixed.
  • "In order to continue work on the channel, it was necessary to store the explosives somewhere; Dunbar and Reaume requested that the injunction be dissolved,[8] but another explosion occurred at the Lime-Kiln Crossing worksite in September 1880, which shook houses in Amherstburg "to their foundations", and could be felt in Essex Center 16 mi (26 km) away.[15]" - This should also be split into 2 sentences, at the semicolon. I even wonder if it should be 3 sentences, since this is super long.
  • "Essex Center " - where?
    I checked, and the center of the town (not the county) of Essex, Ontario is indeed sixteen miles away, so have amended the link.
A little more later (and more quickly this time, I promise). – Epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Whaddya think? jp×g 02:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Construction of new island
  • " While this allowed work to continue, it was not a permanent solution, and the scow had limited capacity; Dunbar & Sullivan had to purchase raw materials and manufacture dynamite, Hercules powder, and other explosive materials themselves at the work site." - This is another sentence that I think would be better off as two sentences. Is the part about "limited capacity" related to Dunbar & Sullivan's need to purchase other stuff at the work site?
    Indeed.
  • " While Dunbar & Sullivan had been forbidden to store explosives on Fox Island, the location of the worksite meant that there were few other places to do so. " - Few other staging areas, I suppose.
  • " to which the 1880 injunction would not apply (having only stipulated that Dunbar & Sullivan not store explosives on Fox Island specifically)" - This has a small grammatical error, though technically it's correct. The parenthetical phrase applies most closely to "the 1880 injunction" not "would not apply", so e.g. to which the 1880 injunction (which only stipulated that Dunbar & Sullivan not store explosives on Fox Island specifically) would not apply.
    Fixed.
  • "the primary difference between the two sites was that one of them had not existed when the ruling was made, and was therefore (ostensibly) not subject to it" - On a side note, this is hilarious. I feel like it's precisely the type of technicality that the government authorities would approve.
    It's epic, to me.
  • Also, should It is unclear why government engineering authorities approved of this reasoning... be combined with the previous paragraph?
    Indeed.
  • There is a duplicate link to "scow" in the fifth paragraph.
    Fixed.
  • " While it was initially referred to as "Dunbar Island"" - I was about to recommend replacing "it" with something like "the island" since, grammatically, "it" is closest to "the dynamite operations of Dunbar & Sullivan" (the nearest noun phrase). But that would be repetitive. In either case, this sentence should be rephrased.
    Rephrased a bit.
  • " 20 short tons (18,000 kg) of dynamite was stored on the island" - This should be "twenty short tons ... were".
    Fixed there and elsewhere.
  • " "you could throw a cat through the cracks"" - Cracks of the shanties?
    Cracks of the shanties!
    Lmao Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third explosion
  • " An "immediate cessation of pleasure" occurred among people in the immediate vicinity." - Who is this quote from? If we're going to use a quote rather than a narrative description of how people started panicking like the plot of 2012, there should at least be some attribution.
    Attribution given.
  • " which would need to be rebuilt with many scowloads of stone and mud" - It should likely either be "which would later be rebuilt" or "which needed to be rebuilt", since the fact that the island needed to be rebuilt is in the present, not the future.
    Done.
  • " An article in the Trenton Tribune would later falsely state that the explosion happened in 1907" - Might the date of this article be relevant?
    Indeed.
Second injunction
  • " Henderson requested that Dunbar & Sullivan be permanently enjoined from storing any dynamite in the Detroit River, which was denied by Judge Swan" - I'd recommend using active voice rather than passive voice here.
    Done.
  • Also, who are judges Swan, Richards, etc? Why are their names important?
    They aren't particularly relevant, but I've included Richards's name because he's being quoted for the opinion. Can remove if you want though.
    I would either include their full names or remove the mentions. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a citation for John K. Richards as judge of the sixth circuit court in Cincinatti at the time. jp×g 01:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with some advocating for a total ban on dynamite storage in the area. " - Do we know any approximate percentages, any specific people who advocated for such a ban, etc? It may not be relevant, but is that information available?
    Not that I could find, although I could dig through a little further if needed.
    Yeah, I would do a little more research into this, just to make sure you haven't skipped anything important. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded a little on it. jp×g 03:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Townsend's proposal for a compromise entailed constructing three additional islands, to store a total of 60 short tons (54,000 kg) of dynamite divided evenly between them" - The comma here is in the wrong place. It doesn't belong after "additional islands", but a comma is needed after "short tons...of dynamite".
    Rephrased.
  • " In the summer of 1911," - Per
    MOS:SEASON
    I would rephrase this. Obviously a North American summer, so "in mid-1911" would work.
    I think it's a little relevant (work on the channel mostly happened during the summer, as the Detroit River freezes up in the winter). I can change it if you want.
    Sadly, the MOS recommends against this, even though the summer is relevant. The alternative is "In the North American summer of 1911", which is very awkward, or "During the summer, in mid-1911", which is very redundant. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did what I could (it says "mid-1911" now). jp×g 03:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In January 1912, a contract was carried out to fill its ice houses" - Why did the island have ice houses? Also, perhaps this should be a new sentence.
    My understanding is that it was to chill the explosives so that they could be handled safely, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. I do know that they were used in the manufacturing process somehow.
Completion of channel and subsequent use of island
  • " would soon come to an end" - I think it suffices to say "soon ended".
    Rephrased.
  • " In the 1920s, it was using nearby Stony Island as a central part of its dredging and excavation operations" - For staging, I suppose.
    For staging...
  • The last paragraph seems abrupt. Do we know anything about when the island was abandoned as a residence, or when the Michigan government took over? Do any structures still exist? The mid-1930s to 1980s is a large era that isn't covered here; were there no sources that talk about the island during this time?
    It's tragic, but I absolutely could not find dick about the island between those years. It seems that once the channel was dug, there was not much of anything going on there -- Wayne County's property records are kind of a pain in the ass so I can't find anything about transfers of the parcel either. I'm not sure what kind of reference work (outside of, say, USGS maps) would even cover random uninhabited sub-acre islands in the Detroit River in a meaningful way.
    Oof, that sucks. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some good news -- I was able to figure out some more kool faktz about some stuff that kinda-sorta went on through the 1960s (mostly the completion of the channel deepening project and a failed 1961 proposal to expand the island). At least it's something... jp×g 03:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG, these are all the comments I have so far. Sorry for making you wait a month, since I tend to keep forgetting about stuff like this. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Gottem. jp×g 07:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Expanded the last section a bit and addressed a couple other minor things, take a look. jp×g 03:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Just a few more things.
  • For the paragraph beginning "In December 1932, channel-deepening operations began again, this time being carried out by a George Mills Company of Ontario", how many of these quotations can be reasonably paraphrased?
Took a swing at it. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another suit with similar complaints was filed against the Arundel Corporation in 1938." - Do we know the outcome?
Unfortunately, I could not find anything on it. Newspaper results for the corporation aren't very prevalent after this period, as I suppose they didn't get up to any similarly fascinating projects afterward... jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Work on nearby shipping channels would continue through the mid-20th century, including a project to deepen the Amherstburg Channel in the late 1950s" - Why is this phrased as "would continue" rather than "continued"?
Bad habits. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enlarging them up to the boundaries of shipping channels." - Enlarging the islands, I assume?
Indeed. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything looks all good now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take a second look tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For various definitions of tomorrow. @Epicgenius: Check it out. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
tq}} above or replace them with the less costly {{green}}? Hog Farm Talk 15:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Hog Farm: Sure. I just removed the template calls altogether. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Trainsandotherthings

Lead

  • "Southeast Michigan" in the first sentence of the lead should be capitalized, as it is a proper name (at least, that's how it is handled at Southeast Michigan).

More comments to come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one is kind of interesting. I don't think there is a lot of consensus on it being a proper place name (in the decades I lived there, anyone who said it just meant the southeastern part of the state). Some fairly heavy-hitting RSes have it lowercase (the State of Michigan, as well as the two papers of record, the Detroit News and the Free Press). With local news channels it's kind of uncertain: Channel 4 has it uppercase, Channel 2 seems to alternate, Channel 7 has it lowercase. But capitalizing it seems to be a minority position (frankly, I think Southeast Michigan may need to be corrected, but that's neither here nor there). jp×g 20:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have at the moment, I'll take a second look once you've reviewed these comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have been made, except for a couple. Firstly, I'm not sure about offering a conversion for "a couple hundred yards", because with the lack of precision it would end up being something silly like "a couple hundred yards (a couple hundred meters)". I can't think of a better way to phrase that. Secondly, the name change -- I could not find any concrete sources on that. People just used the two interchangeably for a while; the 1907 court case says "Powder House Island", and it appears on the 1906 USGS map as "Powder House Island" (both of which seem to be fairly official contexts), and by far the predominant name is "Powder House Island". On the other hand, Wayne County's parcel records in 2021 say "DYNAMITE ISLAND". Thirdly, I don't know how relevant this is, but I am not sure about what jurisdiction the Wayne County chancery court fell under in 1880 (whether it was a separate entity to the circuit court or whether it was a subordinate department). jp×g 21:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper references are inconsistent about including or not including location of publication. Ref 16, for example, does not include the city the newspaper is published, while refs 35 and 36 do. This should be standardized, with either all or none of the newspaper references including the location of publication parameter. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Locations have been added for all newspaper references. @Trainsandotherthings: I think this is everything, let me know what you think. jp×g 00:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My only other comment is I don't think including the coordinates in the prose is necessary. They make sense in the infobox, but seem out of place to me in the text. Other than that, I am willing to Support this FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Took me a while to remember, but I've gotten the coordinates out of the prose. jp×g 20:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - JPxG - I have to be a killjoy here, but would you be willing to remove the check-mark templates here? It's the same general thing with the done templates mentioned up in the instructions at the top of the FAC page. Due to technical limitations, we can only transclude so much at a time, and templates eat up a fair bit of space, so we have to try to limit template usage here. Hog Farm Talk 22:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: You know, now that you mention it, I think someone said this to me earlier in the review and I completely forgot. Anyway, I think this edit should remove them all. jp×g 01:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Hog Farm Talk 04:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will leave comments soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, ping me once you get through Epicgenius' comments, and then I'll review. I don't want run crosspurposes with their review. Hog Farm Talk 05:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Wassap. jp×g 07:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "twenty short tons (18,000 kg) of the island's dynamite" - Running a bit of a headache right now, so I'm not able to dig into the convert template documentation, but presumeably there's a way to let twenty be capitalized since this is a start of the sentence
Done. Apparently the way you do it is change spell=in to spell=In (lol). jp×g 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the county parcel number really significant information to include, especially since I reckon it's unlikely to ever be used except for surveying or land purchase?
Not particularly, so removed. jp×g 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the spelling Lime Kiln Crossing and Lime-Kiln Crossing are both used - is the variant with or without the dash most common? Recommend sticking with one spelling
I have no idea, so I will go with Lime-Kiln. jp×g 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it also went by the name of "Dynamite Island"; eventually it became known as "Powder House Island"" - maybe I'm missing it because of the headache, but the name Dynamite Island doesn't seem to appear on p. 46 of the source?
Not in that source; not terribly relevant to what's being said so I have removed the "Dynamite Island" part. jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned that "However, no such islands were constructed," is only sourced to the maps. Sometimes stuff that did exist at least briefly doesn't show up on maps (see Martensdale, California, for instance, which I couldn't find on the topos when I expanded it)
This is definitely not ideal. It's pretty hard to prove a negative; I spent quite some time trying to find proof that went either way, but I don't think anything would even qualify as evidence short of a "Project To Build Additional Islands Cancelled" headline. That said, there's not a single source that says anything remotely to the effect that there were multiple islands (and all of them refer to Powder House Island in a decidedly singular sense). I guess I could phrase this differently, like this:
"However, these islands do not seem to have been constructed; future references to the area do not mention these islands, and they are not shown on subsequent maps of the area."
I am open to doing something else, though. jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about "However, no such islands appear on survey maps from 1906 through 2019"? Hog Farm Talk 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[57] [56] [59] [55] [54] [50] [58] [60] From the 1930s through the late 1960s, Powder House Island is shown largely unchanged on survey maps" - I'm rather confused by the appearance of 8 references at the beginning of a paragraph. Was some text inadvertently removed?
Yeah, this was just a miscellaneous error (which it looks like I got rid of while doing unrelated fixes). jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Powder House Island is not mentioned in conjunction with these projects" - This appears to be an argument from silence, I think citing descriptions of the projects here would be better than just following this up with the cites to the maps
This sounds smart; have gone ahead anf fixed it. jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in 1987, the company went defunct" - still Arundel?
This is Dunbar & Sullivan (was clearer when the section was smaller, but it's been expanded since so I will rectify). jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Geneaology Trails RS?
I dunno. The only thing it's supporting is that Dunbar & Sullivan went defunct in 1987, which isn't blisteringly relevant anyway. I went looking for some sources to support this, and found this article about them doing something in 1987: "Harbor dredging under way". Kenosha News. Kenosha, Wisconsin. 1987-07-07. p. 7. Retrieved 2022-01-14 – via Newspapers.com.. I dunno -- seems sus. Maybe I can find something else, but for now I will just take it out. jp×g 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)][reply]
Update: They were "winding the company down" in 1989, per this (which says a bit about their history, and some about Stoney Island as well). This talks about where their locations were in 1975 or so. jp×g 08:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of the sources happen to mention the type of vegetation on the island?
Nailhed's article does, and has a ton of pictures of it: do you think I should include that as a source? jp×g 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Nailhed looks RS, but I'll see what I can find. This says that
Sterna hirundo lived there back in 1993, but that might be too old to be worth including. And there area next to the area was apparently a walleye spawning site in 1982. Not really finding anything from the last 20 years, though. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll try to give this another look-through once these are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dope. I will get on it. jp×g 07:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPxG nudge (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's up. It's me, JPxG, the guy who always gets around to stuff... jp×g 05:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, here we go. @Hog Farm: Check it out :) jp×g 08:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, if anyone could get a hold of this document, we could probably get another FA out of all this. jp×g 08:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of state right now, will check back up in a couple days when I get back. Hog Farm Talk 14:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: - I've made a couple replies above, although I'd like to give this another read-through, which unfortunately I don't have time for immediately. I'll try to get back to this in another day or two. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off on the second run-through until Ealdgyth's comments below are addressed; a couple were things I was going to comment on as well and I don't want to double dip. Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally getting back to this, sorry for the wait.

  • The infobox says the article is 0.91 acres (0.37 ha) but the article says "The island, which is covered in foliage, is approximately 200 ft (60 m) from north to south, and 50 ft (15 m) from east to west, giving it an approximate area of 10,000 sq ft (930 m2; 0.23 acres)"
This should be clarified further, which I'll do. Essentially, all survey maps and satellite imagery agree on it having the same size (≈200' × ≈50'). Wayne County has a parcel recorded for the island that covers 0.91 acre, (as it also includes some adjacent water). This is already explained in the Geography section, so I will remove the infobox data. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in December 1879, the three tons of nitroglycerin" - provide a tons to kilograms conversion?
Fixed. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was therefore decided that an artificial island would be constructed next to Fox Island," - the source is just the printing of the 1880 injunction and doesn't really support the decision here
That cite is more in regards to what the sentence says later about the injunction; I'll add a cite to the Federal Reporter source that goes over more regarding the actual decision to construct the island. It seems straightforward to me that, if the island was constructed, the decision to construct the island must have been made prior to that, but you're right that this isn't backed up by the injunction itself. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The explosion has been the subject of misinformation: some contemporary accounts (such as a 28 June article in the Detroit Free Press) " - this doesn't really support "some contemporary accounts" as only one is cited here
Altered. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stony Island is duplicate linked multiple times
Fixed. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will take another look once these are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 05:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPxG, just a reminder that Hog Farm is still waiting for your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: What do you think? I have made some changes. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support. I agree with Ealdgyth here that the sources aren't ideal for a topic like this, but like the nominator I haven't been able to find really anything better. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • What makes the following "high quality reliable sources":
    • https://www.detroitrivercoalition.com/the-detroit-river ?
      • Nothing in particular. The only thing is's supporting is what city/county it's in, which can also be cited to any number of survey maps or other documents. I will just remove it if there are concerns re: reliability. jp×g 04:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 1 " U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Powder House Island" lacks publisher information and retrieval data
  • "The southern tip of the limestone piling on Stony Island is around 700 yd" is sourced to https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#13/42.0891/-83.1364 and an offline map - does the offline map really show a limestone piling because I'm not seeing this supported by the online map
      • The 2019 maps can be found on TopoView (all USGS survey maps can). It does not show that the piling is limestone, no -- there do exist sources talking about limestone pilings off Stony Island (from the Dunbar & Sullivan files), but it would probably be easier to simply amend the text (which I've done). jp×g 04:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is covered in brush and foliage" is sourced to the above online map and to https://www.bing.com/search?q=42.107238,-83.135875 (I assumed you meant the satelite view for this) but I'm not sure we can go so far as to call that "covered in brush" ... the image shows foliage, yes, but whether its trees or brush is not clear.
      • It ought to (and now does) just say "foliage". jp×g 04:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I'm going to get on my soapbox for a bit here. We're supposed to be using secondary sources for wikipedia. And for FAC, we're supposed to be using "high quality" reliable sources - i.e. not just whatever barely reliable sources we can find (not necessarily implying that this article is using shoddy sources). However, this article is almost exlusively sourced to either geological/topographical sources ... or to contemporary newspaper accounts. The only secondary source I can see is the Arcadia Press book on the neighboring island. While technically newspapers and the geological/topographical sources pass
    WP:RS
    , having almost all the article sourced to these sources makes it more of a original research article rather than an encyclopedia article covering how secondary sources cover the island. I know, I know, we allow this, but is there NO secondary source coverage of any of these events? Have local historical societies been checked for their publications? Can more of this be sourced to the Arcadia Press book? Has Google scholar been plumbed for theses and dissertations? I don't want to be a jerk, but this is dangerously close to being what a historian does, rather than what an encyclopedia editor does.
        • DeGruyter has nothing for "powder house island" and one completely unrelated result for "dynamite island". Eighty for "Grosse Ile", none related. jp×g 04:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gale eBooks has nothing for either name. There are only 38 results for "Detroit River", so maybe this is just not going to be a useful resource. jp×g 04:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gale Academic OneFile has nothing for Powder House, 16 unrelated for Dynamite... jp×g 04:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Edinburgh University Press has nothing for either. jp×g 04:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cairn tells me that "votre recherche n’a donné aucun résultat". To be fair, I can't use the site very well because it is in French, but it seems unlikely it would have helpful content anyway. jp×g 04:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The infamous JSTOR gives nothing for Powder House Island and five for Dynamite Island, none of which are about this one. There are 69 results for "grosse ile" "detroit river" but none of them mention Powder House Island (example: one paper, "Decline of Wildcelery Buds in the Lower Detroit River, 1950-85" (Schloesser and Manny 1990), that has an inset map where the island doesn't even show up). jp×g 04:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nomos gives nothing for either. jp×g 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oxford Research Encyclopedias gives nothing for either. jp×g 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oxford Reference gives nothing for either. jp×g 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oxford Scholarship Online gives nothing for either. jp×g 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oxford Academic doesn't let me search with quotation marks, so I used a different search, which returned 237 results. None were relevant. A lot of membership lists from entomological societies, for some reason, and articles like "Thalidomide analogue CC1069 inhibits development of rat adjuvant arthritis". jp×g 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • PNAS gives nothing for either. jp×g 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • ProQuest gives four results for "Powder House Island", three of which are articles from the Detroit Free Press I already looked at while writing the article, and one is about a totally unrelated island elsewhere. There are 21 results for "Dynamite Island" but all are about music releases and et cetera. This one looked promising, but is about a different island on the Mississippi River. jp×g 05:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Google Scholar gives one result for "Powder House Island" (a single passing mention in a study of PCB concentrations at various monitoring points along the Detroit River). Searching for "Dynamite Island" gives 18, which are all either about Iowa, Winnipeg, Sri Lanka, Florida or Antarctica. jp×g 05:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Finally, we have Google itself, which gives us 98 results. Nearly all of them are either mirrored from Wikipedia or procedurally generated pages (like "Powder House Island, Michigan Facts for Kids", "Powder House Island tide times for today, tomorrow and this week", "Powder House Island (Wayne) Map, Weather and Photos"). Of the rest, we have a few. There's this (which is from Maine). Also this, which has a map including it on Page 8. This, this and this are the same (verbatim) as this, which is already being used as a source. jp×g 05:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • For "Dynamite Island", we find this which just tells us stuff we already know and this (page 15) which is the same tale. jp×g 05:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a source thing, but per
    MOS:ALLCAPS
    , we shouldn't have "the island is listed as "DYNAMITE ISLAND"," in all caps.
      • Sure. jp×g 04:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks:
    • Footnote 21 ("Little Locals") is attached to "In 1904, it was reported that Canadian police had found American poachers, illegally fishing for sturgeon, living in a shack on the island." which the source does support.
    • Footnote 51 ("Blasts Tear River Bed") is attached to "The company continued to use Powder House Island as a storage location for explosives;" which the source does support.
    • Footnote 29 ("Explosives are barred") is attached to "Construction began immediately to rebuild the storage sheds. However, attorney Edwin Henderson filed a petition claiming that his house on Grosse Ile had been damaged by the explosion, and on 6 July, a temporary injunction was issued against the Dunbar & Sullivan Company preventing them from storing explosives on the island." which is mostly supported. The "Construction began immediately to rebuild the storage sheds." is not, unless I'm being blind and not seeing it in https://web.archive.org/web/20211202034502/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/89893673/explosives-are-barred-powder-house/
      • The relevant passage here is at the end: "The storage house [...] is being rebuilt in the same place". The explosion took place on June 27, and this was published on July 10 -- so I guess it is subjective whether that's "immediately", and I suppose it could also say "construction soon began". jp×g 04:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • go with "construction soon began" which will solve this issue? -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've edited it: it now says "Several days after the explosion, construction began to rebuild the storage sheds". jp×g 11:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote 41 ("Ameherstburg") is attached to "In mid-1911, workers continued to be employed in the factory" is technically supported but the actual newspaper bit is about ONE worker (https://web.archive.org/web/20211202054619/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/89899265/amherstburg/) and thus is an example of my soapbox above. A historian in a secondary source can take these sorts of mentions ("John Walsh, employed all summer at the powder factory on Dynamite island") and make inferances from them that there was more than one employee - we should not be doing this .... we should be relying on the historian's works to state these facts.
      • Sure -- that makes sense to me. I think someone else earlier made the comment that it sounded bizarre to mention some guy by name in the article if he wasn't notable and he didn't play a large role in the events (i.e. "In mid-1911, John Welsh was employed in the factory"). I will have to think of some way to rephrase this that doesn't sound asinine. jp×g 04:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've gone ahead and removed that sentence and commented out the source -- it may later be possible to include the information, but for now I will err on the side of leaving it out. jp×g 11:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Footnote 61 ("Welcome sign") is attached to "that was mostly completed by 1961." which the source does support.
    • Up to the coords if they think the above merits a more thorough spot check.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPxG any response to these comments? This article has been open for quite a long time and I'm not seeing a consensus to promote at the moment. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I'll be on it today. jp×g 23:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Okay, I have gone through and made some modifications; what do you think? jp×g 05:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck some and replied to others ... Ealdgyth (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got those :) jp×g
I've struck the above resolved issues. The issue of the primary nature of the sources, I'll leave out for other reviewers. Unfortunately, while if this was Ealdgyth-pedia, I'd say the use of sources here doesn't meet our high quality standards because I think it's too close to an actual work of history (rather than encyclopedia building), its a gray area and I suspect it's up to consensus of all the reviewers and the coords. I'm uncomfortable with it, but I can't point to any policy, guideline, or FA criteria that explicity prohibits it. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JPxG, any further comments or actions in the light of Ealdgyth's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None beyond the ones I already gave (and the changes I already made) regarding supplementary references from online databases and TWL affiliates. So far I've incorporated everything I could find in all search results from both names on Newspapers.com, the Detroit Historical Society, the Grosse Ile Historical Society, Google Scholar, DeGruyter, Gale eBooks, Gale Academic OneFile, Edinburgh University Press, Cairn, JSTOR, Nomos, Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Oxford Reference, Oxford Scholarship Online, Oxford Academic, PNAS, ProQuest, and a normal Google search. jp×g 23:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "Twenty short tons (18,000 kg) of the island's dynamite exploded in 1906 after two men "had been shooting with a revolver" near it; while there were no deaths (and only minor injuries to the two men), windows were shattered 3 mi (4.8 km) away and the explosion was clearly audible from 85 mi (137 km) away." That sounds very exciting but given that there's no finding that they caused the explosion (and the Sixth Circuit said the cause was unknown), is it really worth putting in the lead?
      • I'd been careful to say "after" rather than "because", but if the implication is too strong regardless, it can just be taken out of the lead. jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "21 April 1895" Why is day month year being used in an American non-military article? Also other dates.
      • I find MDY to be bizarrely confusing, but since it only takes one click to format all the dates in the article that way, I've done so. jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati" This is the Sixth Circuit and I would say so. Also, you don't seem ever to cite the actual case opinion and I'm not sure you've reviewed it, since it contains information about Powder House Island. For example, that the state owned it at the time of the explosion, and that two boys were fishing and their boat was destroyed though they were not much hurt. There may be other info as well. It is here. By the by, you would cite it as: Henderson v. Sullivan, 159 F. 46 (6th Cir. 1908), and if you were citing to a specific page or pages, it would be Henderson v. Sullivan, 159 F. 46, XX (6th Cir. 1908) where XX represents the page numbers or numbers. (the page numbers from the original, which I can't seem to find online, are bracketed in the text). Let me know if you need help with this, since I'm a lawyer, I'm picky about such things.
      • Yeah, when I wrote this, I send my friend esq. a message to make sure I had gotten some of the phrasing right, although I didn't have him copyedit the entire section, so it seems predictable that I would get a few things wrong. I am not sure how to format legal citations, so I could try to figure it out myself (or if it'd be a quick edit for you, that'd work fine as well). Almost the entirety of my information on the court case comes from the several page section of the Federal Reporter citation here, which as far as I can tell contains the same content as the link you've posted, although I'm not sure whether that's an "opinion" or a "ruling" or what. If there is a separate thing, I can look at that as well, but I couldn't find anything that wasn't contained within that original citation (both of them begin with "The storage on an island in a navigable river", "The defendant, Michael Sullivan" ... and both end with "at the place described in the bill as his residence on Grosse Isle"); yours does seem to have some additional information on cases that set precedents, but no additional material about the specific case in question. jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history of the 1908 injunction seems to ignore that, according to the 1908 decision, the case was filed in state court but removed to federal court (I'm guessing because it happened in a navigable waterway that impacted interstate and foreign commerce, but I'm only guessing). And technically the Sixth Circuit did not grant the injunction, but instructed the lower federal court to grant one.
      • This one, I must profess ignorance of -- I couldn't figure a whole lot out regarding how the case progressed, who filed it, and where it moved around afterwards. That said, I do not have a very good grasp on how such a case moves around anyway, so maybe I did figure it out and I couldn't understand it. Is the citation for this stuff in the Federal Reporter reference? jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Powder House Island is shown largely unchanged on survey maps throughout this time.[60][35][61]" Did you intend for the numbered citations to be out of order?
I'd prefer to avoid it, but on the other hand, they are being given in chronological order (the citations are <ref name="usgs1936"/><ref name="usgs1940"/><ref name="usgs1952"/>). I don't know if there is a way to avoid this, but if there is I'd be willing to do so. jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I'll give it another look when you're ready for me to.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'd call an ignorantia juris situation; when I was adding the stuff about the court proceedings it wasn't quite clear to me the proper way to phrase (and cite) everything, so I appreciate the help. I will try to work with what you've given me here, and I'll let you know when I have something. jp×g 21:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject of things that would be easier if I had gone to law school, there is currently a real-life issue I have to make sense of (and a couple Signpost articles I have to write) over the next couple days, so I may not be available for editing much during that time. jp×g 08:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you're ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. The real-life issue ended up working out fine, somehow, and the other stuff is fine as well. jp×g 22:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I've gone through your comments :) jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get back to this tomorrow. It's the same case, I mis-typed the volume number. Yours is a better link than mine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On another look, I'll Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh

Comments
  • "It was constructed in the late 1880s" — I would specify 'Island' here, else it appears that 'it' represents the border. Optional suggestion.
  • "to the water's edge", "had been shooting with a revolver" — The lead does not makes clear where these quotes comes from.
  • "within Grosse Ile Township, in Wayne County, Michigan, in the United States" — why not simplify to "within Grosse Ile Township, Wayne County, Michigan, United States"?
  • "audible in St. Clair some 60 mi (97 km) to the north" — I'd replace 'some' with 'approximately'
  • Ref#8 has "p. 46" in the source, but you use ":47" in the {{Rp}}
  • "represented by Dr. David Inglis" — I don't think we refer to people on Wikipedia by there title, Dr. or Prof.
  • Lake Erie, Grosse Ile, Trenton, Bois Blanc Island: linked more than once.

Perhaps, that is it! Nice work! Didn't know that so much can be written about a 930 m^2 island! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at these general comments as well, JPxG? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks

Will do Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Per Special:Diff/1071059481, do you need further spot-checks in addition to the ones given by Ealdgyth above? I'll be happy to do if required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do please, yes. Note the instances above where Ealdgyth wasn't happy that the source supported the text. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, I'll do! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version reviewed: [2]

  • "It is approximately 500 yd (1,500 ft; 460 m) east of Fox Island" — I am not able to access the source, but the data is cited to, well, maps?
Indeed; some sources mentioned this distance vaguely, but the survey maps are the most reliable indication of what the actual distance is (text sources have given different figures for its area, for example).
I really don't know if maps are the best sources, but as it is from United States Geological Survey, I'll assume they are reliable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in December 1879, the three tons (2,700 kg) of nitroglycerin stored on Fox Island detonated without warning," — Can you quote a phrase from the source(s) which support that it was "detonated without warning"?
When I say "without warning" here, what I mean is that it wasn't deliberate on the part of the company -- it could also say "unintentionally" and be basically the same.
I've gone ahead and changed it to "unexpectedly".
  • "Their request was denied in November, and it became evident that a new location would need to be found or created." — OK
  • "Regardless, by May 1881, construction was underway: between eight and ten carpenters, under the direction of John P. Jones, were employed in the construction of a scow." — OK, but too similar to the source. For comparision:
    • Article: "between eight and ten carpenters, under the direction of John P. Jones, were employed in the construction of a scow"
    • Source: "From-eight to ten carpenters, under the direction of John P. Jones, are constantly employed in the ship yard in connection with the works, where they are building a new scow"
Article text revised.
  • "In 1904, it was reported that Canadian police had found American poachers, illegally fishing for sturgeon, living in a shack on the island" — OK
  • "Powder House Island was shaken by an explosion "so terrific in nature that the residents of the town and pleasure-seekers on adjacent islands thought it was an earthquake visitation"" — OK
  • "which reversed the prior ruling and granted an injunction (albeit with limitations) in February 1908, with Judge John K. Richards" — I don't see anything related in the source
The source for the opinion is in ref 31 at the end of the sentence ("Appeal to the Courts: Island residents decline to argue dynamite matter"). Ref 30, to the biography of John Richards, is to confirm that he was the judge presiding over that court at that time (the US Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit, from 1903 to 1909). Otherwise, all ref 31 says is "Judge Richards".
In that case, suggesting to move both the references to end of the sentence, to imply that they jointly support the entire statement. But that is a minor point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By March 1910, the dynamite factory on Powder House Island had returned to operation, with an output of 2 short tons (1,800 kg) per day." — Source writed "two tons", we write "2 short tons", are they same?
References to a "ton" in US publications mean 2,000 pounds, but it's necessary to distinguish between this and the British "ton", which can either be 2,000 (short ton) or 2,240 (long ton).
  • "Another suit with similar complaints was filed against the Arundel Corporation in 1938." — OK
  • "As of 2015, Powder House Island (as well as the nearby Stony Island, also formerly owned by Dunbar & Sullivan) was owned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, managed by its Wildlife Division as part of the Pointe Mouillee State Game Area, and accessible to the public for hunting and camping." — I can't fine mention of "Power House Island" and "formerly owned by Dunbar & Sullivan".
For some reason, the DNR website is not letting me access the map, and the archive link is not showing it either, so I will have to figure out a workaround for this.
Okay, I managed to get a version of the DNR map from the Wayback Machine (had to use a prior archive from 2020 for some reason). It does show that Powder House Island is contained within the game area -- to make this clearer you can look here, where I've superimposed the DNR map on a USGS survey map. I will add a ref for Stony Island having been used by D&S.
  • No opinion on source reliability and/or formatting.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: No response from JPxG from a week. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Hi! Thanks for the comments -- I'll be on it tomorrow. jp×g 10:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no issues! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four to six days later... jp×g 21:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right. @Kavyansh.Singh: Check it out now :) jp×g 00:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as spot-checks are concerned, they look OK now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Kavyansh.Singh. Sorry to press you, but any chance that you could elaborate a little on the article's source to text fidelity; the extent to which the sources are primary rather than secondary (and the extent if any to which you consider this a problem); and if the sources are "high-quality reliable sources" as required by the FAC criteria. (Rather than "merely" reliable as required for any Wikipedia article.) If you have no opinion on any of these, that's fine - but could you let me know? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure,
      WP:OR to me as well; but again, there maybe are no better sources available. As for the news sources, they are fine in my opinion. Not the best sources, but the article uses them just to support the events, as opposed to evaluative claims. So, all in all, I believe that all sources are "reliable sources", but if there are no better sources available, then these have to be of the high quality as well (as there is nothing better to compare it with). So even if we assume this is the best possible article we can get on the topic, sourcing is not as good as generally required for FAC ... But it is a subjective decision. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Powder_House_Island/archive1&oldid=1074577689"