Talk:House at 130 Mohegan Avenue/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 13:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC) GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I am noticing a pattern in your work, Chris. There are rarely serious concerns about the articles (things that would derail the GAN), but the prose almost always needs a copyedit. In fact, I've seen some of your recently promoted articles that needed a copyedit before promotion and didn't receive one. My recommendation is that you read your articles out loud when you're ready to submit them here, as I feel that most of the issues your articles have are in sentence composition and flow (repeating the same words too often, not having commas in places where they're needed, etc.).

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

• "Though claimed as a new discovery, the Winslow Ames House was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1995 and its nomination detailed the House's origin and that it was modified significantly with a gable roof." - I don't understand what you mean in the first part of this sentence. Please clarify it.

• Fixed. The house's historic value was claimed as a "new discovery", but the Winslow Ames House nomination form was an example of a previous publication that covered the history of this "sister house". I didn't want to slam Van Slyck for not knowing the historic value of the two buildings which are on site, but also tried to reflect that the information and history is not "a new discovery" of any such sort. Trying to correct the newspaper without crossing OR or insulting any of the parties involved... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage:

a. covers main aspects: Needs work

• In other U.S. National Register of Historic Places articles, there's usually a sentence specifically addressing the significance (in this context, the rationale for listing). While there's something close to that in the line on this type of building's scarcity, there needs to be a sentence directly on significance.

• While I can draft something up, the actual NHRP listing has not been digitized. The link would be - http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/08001379.pdf - and I rather not make something up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• How did ownership transfer from Winslow Ames to Connecticut College?

• Fixed. Add details on it being sold.

• One of the New York Times sources mentions what Connecticut College is using the building for now. That needs to make it into the article.

• That was in 1991 - prior to restoration, but furthermore that is about the Winslow Ames House with only tidbits on this topic's house. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Acceptable

5. Stable: Acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable

• Shame that no one has photographed the building. Consider asking WikiProject Connecticut, and sending an email to wikimedia-connecticutlists.wikimedia.org.

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: Section acceptable

a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: Some minor issues, but easily passable with those fixed. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sven Manguard: - Check please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri: Clarify what the "this" is in "but this was already known by previous publications" please. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sven Manguard:. Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I'm promoting this now. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)