Talk:Santa Clara Campaign Treaty Site

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 23 October 2023 by reviewer Theroadislong (talk · contribs).

Military history: South America

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	South American military history task force

Deblogification

@Graywalls: Thank you for reviewing the article on the Santa Clara Campaign Treaty Site. I noticed that you relocated the plaque's inscription to the caption of the image featuring the plaque. Additionally, you deleted the source reference, and your explanation was that it's not necessary since anyone can view the photo and read the inscription. This formatting choice is new to me, and it has made the caption quite lengthy. I would like to know if this is a common practice based on your experience? Greg Henderson (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue of using NoeHill.com, which is a blog. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#NoeHill.com. I suppose we could just omit the caption entirely, but citing NoeHill doesn't look appropriate. @Netherzone and Melcous:, any comment on this? Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. In this case, I actually prefer the plaque text as a block quote within the body of the article, rather than as a long photo caption. It reads more seamlessly that way.

I also had a look at the NoeHill.com website, which is indeed a blog, and therefore does not have the type of editorial oversight needed as a reliable source for the encyclopedia. It should not be used. Netherzone (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Thanks, you said you "actually prefer the plaque text as a block quote within the body of the article, rather than as a long photo caption." If that is the case, can you put the plaque text back? Greg Henderson (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do it, but let's see if there is consensus first. Perhaps Melcous or another editor will participate. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care about the layout. The use of NoeHill.com is objectionable. A photo also can't be used as a source, but a pure mechanical transcription of what it says should be fine without a source. In this case, leaving it unsourced is probably better than citing some random's blog. Graywalls (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Thanks for your comments. There are two sources for the plaque text have already been cited in the article here and here. The NoeHill.com citation has been removed. Including the plaque transcription can indeed assist readers in understanding the content of the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the WP:SPS that appears to fail WP:RS criteria. It looks to be a personal website of Beatrice and Denis Delja, according to the site's "contact" link, so, I've removed https://www.californiahistoricallandmarks.com/landmarks/chl-260 Please feel free to send it to RSN or ask others if you believe this source meets reliable source criteria. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]