Talk:Saline Valley salt tram

Saline Valley salt tram is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 16, 2022.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 13, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
March 12, 2022	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 1, 2023.

Current status: Featured article

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 6 December 2021 by reviewer Scope creep (talk · contribs).

United States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saline Valley salt tram/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 16:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this one. eviolite (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Images:

Were all of the images published before 1927?
- I have no idea. Courtesy ping @Netherzone:. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for the ping. The photo info is as follows:
- Infobox - downloaded from Flicker, released on a valid CC license
The following 5 images were downloaded from [1] and dated as noted below.
- Salt tram terminal - date: 1912
- Piles of salt - date : 1912
- Bob Crosby, et al - date: 1916
- Twelve Mule team - date: 1912
- Looking east - date early 1900s
It seems that they are all either out of copyright because they were published before 1927, and the color image has a valid free license. BTW, I love the image with all the piles of salt, and agree with Vami VI that it is relevant to the content as salt is the very reason the tram was built, and this is how the product was stored onsite before sending off to market.

I will read through the article again - it looks pretty clean, tho. I'm so pleased to hear it's a GA nominee! Netherzone (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: I guess my main concern was the images was the publication date, which is what matters - it's technically possible that smoe of these images were taken in the 1910s but weren't published until later. I'm not sure if that's findable or not, but it's likely fine? eviolite (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eviolite I have no idea about that, but perhaps someone more familiar with image use rules and policies would know. Or maybe an admin on Commons? I found all the historical images on the Owens Valley History website linked in my message above. According to the website they got the images from the Eastern California Museum. Here is what a disclaimer on the Owens Valley History main page says: NOTICE: All items on this website have been catagorized as fair use and are being displayed strictly for non-commercial and nonprofit educational purposes. Only one of the images has more specific info, and that is the one with the piles of salt and two standing men - the image caption is: "Photo Courtney (sic) of Rich McCutchan archives, Photo taken by Miles O. Bolser circa 1912-1913". There are two other salt pile images without any additional info located here: [2] and here [3]. Personally I don't think using these images is problematic. Hope that helps! Netherzone (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eviolite, @Vami IV -sorry for the additional ping, but I wanted to share this license which I think might apply, since the images have no copyright notice: [4] - its the "Public Doman US no notice license", and if I understand it correctly, I think it does apply to the images in this article. But maybe best to check with a Commons Admin? I am not a photo expert. Netherzone (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. In any case it's not a big deal as the images can just be removed afterwards and that does seem reasonable enough. I've asked at c:COM:VPCOPY though. eviolite (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are the images of the salt piles and the people relevant (rather than images of the tramway itself?)
- I'd argue "yes"; 'tis an aerial tram for moving those very piles of salt. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is good.

Lead:

Lead is a bit short. Also, the first sentence seems long winded, consider splitting into two ("The Saline Valley salt tram was an electric aerial railway in California, connecting Saline Valley to a terminus northeast of Keeler in the Owens Valley. It was constructed from 1911 to 1913 to carry salt from Saline Valley over the Inyo Mountains", maybe)
- Done –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could also cover the specific companies that used it and that it was very expensive to construct.
- Added –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta go for now, will finish later. eviolite (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for body:

Construction and operation:

Much of this section appears to be more about background info with the history of salt mining there and other plans. Consider splitting this into two sections, one about background, or also mentioning background in the section title. Or maybe just "History".
- Done –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is "occupied" correct here? It doesn't sound right to me but wouldn't be surprised if it is.
- Changed to "took two days". –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comma after "In 1902"
- Added –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"over 1903" - "from"?
- Done –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comma after "Thereafter"
I feel like "Workers were obliged to live out of tents while the work itself, often taking place in 100 °F (38 °C) heat, required the reconstruction and extension of a road on the western slopes and a team of eight horses for pulling supplies" wants to be two separate sentences as it's conveying two things (that conditions were bad and they had to sleep in tents, and that the work required building a road and horses.
- Done –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Sierra Salt Company reopened the operation in 1925 but did not use the tram until 1929; it had been repossessed in 1920 by the Trenton Iron Company, who sold it in 1928 to the Sierra Salt Company." - something goes wonky with the chronology here; it talks about 1925-1929 and then events that happened in 1920, and I think it would be more straightforward to just go chronologically.
- Done –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give more info on "It was briefly reopened for the last time in 1954." - that it was a minor success by just a trio of people
- Not done It was not a success. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route and design:

"Add to these, were 34..." - change to something like "Additionally, there were 34..."?
- Fixed –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"rising 7,600 feet (2,300 m) from the Saline Valley to the top of the Inyo Mountains and then descending 5,100 feet (1,600 m) into the Owens Valley" is incomplete - did some words at the beginning get deleted?
- Fixed Yup. Edit scar. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"by an ... engine ..., which were" - plural/singular mismatch, should be fixed
- Done –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
- Done –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The tram moved the buckets at 5.5 miles per hour (8.9 km/h), 20 tons of salt could thus be moved in an hour" - change comma to semicolon, consider moving "thus" to the beginning of the clause (so "The tram moved the buckets at 5.5 miles per hour (8.9 km/h); thus, 20 tons of salt could be moved in an hour")
- Done –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
do the workers have to be men?
- Nyet tovarisch. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: That's it for my comments, placing on hold. Generally a well-written article. eviolite (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits Vami IV! A few things:

As for the "minor success" the source says In that year, three men, D. O. Morrison, J. J. McKenna and Tony Pinheiro, leased the operation from T. K. Temple of Los Angeles. The trio had only minor success with the facility hence my comments - was just wondering if any detail could be added. Of course as you have stated it was only brief so it doesn't matter too much and I don't think it should hold up the review.
You still seem to have a broken sentence at Construction was difficult; workers were obliged to live out of tents while the work itself, often taking place in 100 °F (38 °C) heat. required the reconstruction and extension of a road on the western slopes and a team of eight horses for pulling supplies.
- Fixed Can't believe I missed this. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the gallery photos: I think they're probably fine but we should probably wait for the experienced people on Commons... in the meantime what you could do is remove the gallery for now and re-add it if they are public domain - they aren't too crucial as there is a "modern" infobox image as well. eviolite (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: Buidhe has now removed the gallery as it has an unknown copyright status so now I am happy with promoting it to GA. Again if it turns out to be fine I have no objections adding it back in. Great work! eviolite (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism section revert[edit]

I didn't realize we weren't allowed to use official government accounts publishing via the Instagram platform!
What was POV about the text?
Should we not edit FAs once they've passed FA approval? That seems weird --they're not somebody's dissertation--this is meant to be a living encyclopedia and in this case it's seems like news about partial destruction of the historic site would be germane? jengod (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jengod:. Probably, but I think it's too early to put something like up. Its WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE at the moment, particularly with instragram ref, which is junk non-rs and unsuitable for an FA article. You shouldn't be using it. It stands out like a sore thumb. I think you should try and make it a single sentence, after it's all done and dusted, a couple of months up the road. And why a quote the investigation being humbling. What has that do with the salt tram? It is completely undue. scope_creep^Talk

Ok! @Scope creep: Not pressed about it or anything. We're not a news site but a damaged national landmark makes the news people often seek clarity about what happened on the Wikipedia article.

Instagram is just an information trafficking site. USNPS puts content on there that's identical to any other platform it uses. Instagram is not fundamentally more or less reliable or serious than any other given worldwidewebsite.com or FTP or BBS or Discord -- it has no inherent worth or worthlessness, it's whether the content creator is reliable etc.

The "humbling" bit was where we glean the information that that the off-roading community were supporting the investigation, which suggests to the reader that perhaps known off-roaders had been implicated as perpetrators.

jengod (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jengod: Instagram is a social media site with no filters and is completely unreliable by definition. The problem is most folks can't tell the difference, the effect is its a half-way house with no benefits for those for or against. I take them out. If that instagram ref was in when it was reviewed for FA, it would have been rejected. I tend to taken them out. I don't know about the second part, although waiting a month and then put something. It does need something, no doubt. Right, aye, I see what you mean. I think that WP:UNDUE as well. I still think wait a wee while for better sources then a succint one line sentence that states it was vandalised and the tower destroyed. I don't think you need more details for that such a small FA article. scope_creep^Talk 00:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reports are beginning to come out...[5], [6], [7], [8]. The second link is a release from the Nat'l Park Service— Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs)

@Jengod: I see it has reached the UK independent [9] this morning. I think there is enough reportage withot the istagram ref. Sorry I delayed you. scope_creep^Talk 07:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Thanks for patrolling! I think my confidence is shot though; hopefully someone else will come along and add something. jengod (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jengod, I can help out with that. Scopecreep, thanks for the link to The Independent. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]