Talk:Benjaminville Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground

High style?

It is my understanding that high style (of whatever style) is an example of a particular architectural style in a structure which incorporates all of the major elements associated with a particular style. Such that, they are excellent illustrative examples of said style. Is this correct? Could this be describe as a high style example of Quaker architecture if it is true? (Based upon: The building is considered a fine example of traditional Quaker architecture because it contains all of the elements found in the typical example meeting house). I thought I would throw this out there in case I have misunderstood the terminology. IvoShandor 10:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

Hi, I've undertaken a review and have a few comments I'd like some feedback on before I pass the article to WP:GA status.

•  DoneConsistency of Meetinghouse vs Meeting House is required throughout the article.
•  Done"...somewhat unique..." - it's either unique or not.
•  DoneMinor point but references look a lot better if they're in numerical order (ie. [1][3] instead of [3][1] in History section.
• You convert all units bar acre to metric values, any reason for not being complete?

I don't understand this one either.

Well, feet is converted to metres/meters, so why isn't acres converted to hectares, or square metres? There's an area conversion later on in the article... The Rambling Man 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not a tremendously diverse amount of sources, almost all come from Illinois' own Preservation Agency. Any chance of other sources that could be added?

Please let me know if you'd like me take another look at the article if and when any of these points are addressed, in the meantime I'll put the review on hold. Cheers. The Rambling Man 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on this one, but I can tell you that getting historical information like this is hard to get, so the five sources present are good.--Kranar drogin 22:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm sure it's a challenge. The Rambling Man 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, it appears that the image Image:Benjaminville Meeting House Site Map.png isn't valid... perhaps because a search and replace on meeting house? The Rambling Man 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my bad there. Should be fixed.--Kranar drogin 22:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A few comments from the main author:

•  Done So that leaves the conversion for acres, which won't be hard and I think we should just go with Meeting house or Meeting House for the sake of consistency.
• Looks like Kranar addressed the main points.
• The refs, as Kranar said, are pretty sparse for this one. I suppose in a quest for FA digging through old county histories may reveal something not said here. I would note that the National Register Nomination Form author has no affiliation with the IHPA other than sending it through them to get the building listed, that's the case with most Register Nomination Forms.
• So I will get crackin'.

IvoShandor 06:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'd stick with "Meeting House" to be consistent with the other articles you've got linked at the bottom. I understand about the references, not always easy. Let me know when you're done so I can review (and hopefully promote!). The Rambling Man 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and did just that, just for the sake of consistency. I think the other comments have been addressed as well. So go ahead and review it unless you had anything else you wanted to note. IvoShandor 06:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review (pass)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Thanks for making the changes I suggested, I added the acre conversion (try to remember to use non-breaking spaces between values and their units, as per WP:UNITS), and so I'm now promoting to GA. The Rambling Man 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Benjaminville Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update all of the access dates as well. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benjaminville Friends Meeting House and Burial Ground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927174936/http://www.historyillinois.org/Markers/old_markers/21.htm to http://www.historyillinois.org/Markers/old_markers/21.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)