This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
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.
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
Image copyright problem with Image:Moses Brown Aerial-.jpg[edit]
The image Image:Moses Brown Aerial-.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
^Numbers represent an alphabetical ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmarks and historic districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.
^The eight-digit number below each date is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number.
I restored this to the main list, with a cite needed tag. Even if the building has been demolished, it may still be listed on the NRHP. Odd, but true, as I've encountered a number like it in my NRHP roadtrips around Florida. --‖ Ebyabetalk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Properties should only be moved to the "Former listings" if they have been formally removed from the National Register. Demolished properties (such as the Louttit Laundry, mentioned above), are still listed on the National Register. (See e.g. the state-maintained list of listings, where that and other demolished properties continue to appear.) Magic♪piano14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Hi! @Beyond My Ken: has replaced a number of images that have been in this article for a while now. Do any of you have thoughts on which photos should be used? I am concerned that those by Beyond My Ken (the first two) are largely out of focus, aren't corrected for perspective distortion, and may not follow the guidelines established in MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. I'd love to hear someone else's thoughts. Filetime (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt, all of the images on the left are better. The bottom left has even been assessed as a Quality Image. Pbrks (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Artistry is not the only criterion for Wikipedia; even if the left images have more technical benefits, the images on the right are more suitable given they show more (set 3), or more prominent facades (set 2), or with better lighting (set 1). ɱ(talk)03:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]