US National Register of Historic Places - Revisions

[+silverquill]

After discussion, we have decided to make some changes for the US National Register of Historic Places category.

 

First, we have a new group leader, BruceS. He has really been the pioneer in this category, so it is great to have him at the helm.

 

Second, we have worked on a complete rewrite for the category description. It is much longer, but it addresses many of the issues that come up frequently.

 

Third, because the database that we have used for the primary web site link for every waymark is still off-line, we have decided to accept two additional databases as valid primary sites: Landmark Hunter and Find The Data. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, but I think they will serve us well.

 

Thanks for your patience while we dealt with this small crisis. If you have any questions or suggestions about the revisions, please let me know.

 

There are over 87,000 places listed in the Register, so we there is plenty of fun to go around!

[+cache_test_dummies]

Nice job on the rewrite, and for working around the issue of the defunct website. This is quite a long category description, but I understand the need for a high level of detail. I'm a bit concerned, however, that the category description is so long that it might scare some people away.

 

Couple of typos:

 

Section 3 Photographs (first sentence), "photos" is spelled wrong: "personally take phnotos of the site".

 

Section 4 Description (second paragraph, first sentence): missing a space between "Description" and "is".

 

Same paragraph, 5th sentence: I think you meant to use the word "results" rather than "resorts" in "often yield good resorts".

 

Section 5 Variable Fields (second paragraph, fourth sentence): missing an "s" in "newsletter" in "the weekly newletter".

[+silverquill]

Thanks for catching the typos! This proves the saying that one should never rely on one's own proofreading, which I did. Someone else caught a few others.

 

Yes it is long, but I felt we needed to cover the issues. I'll see if I can tighten up my writing though.