Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Briarcliff Farms/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2016 [1].

Briarcliff Farms edit

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article out of interest for what preceded Briarcliff Manor, New York, and what Walter William Law was so devoted to for much of his life. I was very surprised to find more information on the farm than I probably had about the village itself; the farm was incredibly well documented in its time. I found plenty of photographs and accounts in very surprising places, and to be honest this article should now be one of the most useful and comprehensive accounts of the farm and its history. After reaching Good Article status, going through a thorough GOCE copyedit, and having key members and the president of the BMSHS review this, I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. This is my sixth FA nomination; the first two were for the October 19, 2014 TFA Briarcliff Manor, the next two were for the July 25, 2015 TFA Elliott Fitch Shepard. The last was for this article, I can never seem to get enough attention to these FACs. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting my review of the article, I will add in comments as I go and you can feel free to address it when you get a chance, I will check in now and then to see how it's going. At first glance it looks like it's close to FA status already.

  • Images - License etc. checks out and are appropriate, alt text are in order.
  • External links - All active and okay
  • References - Looks like they're reliable sources
  • Check the suggestions by the peer review bot (link at the top) it has a couple of comments around Galleries, numbers and footnote placements that you can look into addressing
  • Lead - there is a citation in the lead, made me think it sourced something not in the main body of the text and I was right I found nothing about a "European country seat" in the body of the text. per WP:LEAD the lead should not be the only place something is mentioned.
More to come as I go through the article.  MPJ-US  03:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MPJ-DK: Thank you. I did look through the peer review suggestions, and although I would generally agree with all of them, I don't believe they exactly apply in the cases that exist here. The lead has that paragraph that's largely summarizing the operation, and is thus suitable for the lead. A few of the points may be later mentioned in the article, but are probably scattered... I believe the "European country seat" part can be cited to other works if necessary; I didn't find it really necessary however. The source given provides all the details that are key elements of a European manor or country seat. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: Alright so after a few days with stuff going on I am back to continue my review of this article. So I am not sure I get the whole "it's summarizing the operation" comment. The lead should summarize the article, the operation should be described more in depth in the article. The lead should not be the only place something is mentioned, it is okay that points are scattered in the article as long as they are there. MPJ-US  00:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure theoretically the main importance of the lead is to summarize the article. That doesn't mean it can't do other things, and there will always be exceptions that apply. I can't find a way to duplicate the country seat information without repeating it too obviously, and the various aspects of that statement are covered throughout the article, making any such addition very difficult to place, as it actually does summarize points all around the article.ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree on that thought in general, nothing should just be in the lead. And I understand it's hard to not repeat it, but that is less of a concern, to me I treat the lead and the main article as two separate entities, there will be some repetition between them, it's kinda by design.  MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
  • "And also" in the first paragraph is redundant
No? I describe what the farm was known for, and then use the "and also" to separate that from the farm's other notable products. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
  • I am seeing the (pp2) etc. but I am not sure what this refers to, is that the pages of the specific citation or is there a general source that's referred to as such? I am not seeing a general source? If it's for the specific citation it should be in the citation, not next to it.
This is Template:Rp, which is an acceptable citation style. The 'pp' should make it clear that it's listing page numbers. I wouldn't include that in the actual citation because those citations are used many times in the article, and most times cite to a different page. The only way around that is a notes section, which would include a lot more code and probably be as long as the references section. Far from ideal. I use Rp in other articles, a few of which have recently reached FA. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for clarifying. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a source on all the work he did on the soil? the paragraph starting with "Law found the soil poor..."
Yes, that paragraph is (for the most part) cited to reference 6. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Covered then. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation [22] should be at the end of the sentence, not in the middle of it.
It is actually acceptable, and in common use. Please see WP:CITEDENSE. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know CITEDENSE, good to know. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A larger dairy building was planned", makes it seem like it was never built?
The history books are too murky on this, and the current living authorities aren't sure; regardless there's no reference to attribute to its actual construction. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it's better to state what we know than to move into OR territory so I am good with this. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1909 Law formed the Briarcliff Realty Company to sell the original Briarcliff Manor property." - Does not actually state it was sold?
Obviously the property changed hands, but I don't have records of any sale, including the date sold or to whom it was sold. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As right above this. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thorne and W. Alan McGregor began the herd, and were determined to enlarge it by breeding", not sure exactly what information you wanted to convey in that sentence? I take it the later mention of importing was for further breeding?
I fixed these sentences. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am good with the reworded sentence. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (when Thorne became the first to win a grand championship twice)." looks like an "interesting factoid" that's tacked onto a sentence, you may want to consider revising that sentence.
Good point, reworded. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What year was the Dutchess County Fair? where Briarcliff Aristocrat was shown?
Added, thanks. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent
  • The article goes into very little detail on the history from 1935 on, 35 to 79 in a short sentence
The farm didn't really exist after 1935. However I describe its turning hands and eventual fate in as much detail as possible. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my mistake, the buildings etc. existed but it ceased being Briarcliff Farms? Then the level of detail is appropriate. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last bit of history is that the farm was for sale in 1984.... so is it still for sale? Article makes it seem so.
The farm fell out of national and even local news. I'm fairly sure all of the property is now split between Mashomack and Berkshire Stud, which I mention in the Farm status section. No sources indicate Stockbriar's actual change of hands or replacement of any sort. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then once again this is the best information we can source, no issue here. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location
  • Section seems to go into needless details at time such as "Law frequently joined the men at meals", which is not really relevant to the "Location" is it?
Not every detail within a paragraph has to be directly relevant to the section title, does it? I included it as it describes an aspect of the boarding house that makes it seem like more than just a men's boarding house. As well, having the proprietor dine with his workers shows an aspect of him that was reflected in his business. I'm not sure, perhaps it's better in his own article? I just tried to have everything relevant to Dalmeny that's within Portal:Briarcliff Manor fall in this one section. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That one sentence is just a personal prefernce, not a deal breaker in any way. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operations
  • Is there no article to link to for the term Certified Milk?
I address this difficulty below. What are your thoughts on it? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the challenges, totally do. Different standards in different locations, over time etc. how about you put in a footnote that does a high level definition of what it means in this particular case? Just a suggestion, not a deal breaker. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if the note on the Walker-Gordon Laboratories is really relevant?
Well, I was listing the largest farms in the East, and naturally one would want to know their locations, so I stated NJ, but the best I could do for Walker-Gordon was that. I'm borderline, do you still think it should be removed? !!!!
Keeping it the way it is is okay with me. MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation [30] is in the middle of the sentence after "twice a day"
Thank you for your comments so far! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: - I have addressed the feedback, not much left to deal with.  MPJ-US  11:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going through this now, I'll just pull out some of the key points I find:

  • The farm combined a practical American business model with the concept of a European country seat; this is only mentioned in the lead... if it is important enough to put this in the lead it should be covered in more detail in the article (many readers will not understand what a European country seat consists of).
  • with cows being milked constantly, and with milk promptly chilled and bottled within five minutes, and shipped to stores in New York City each night; apart from being framentary, this second portion of the sentence seems to bear no correlation to the first. It's really just a new sentence.
  • The article is very long (which is great) but the lead does not adequately summarise the whole thing. It needs tightening up on the existing content and coverage increased on other areas.
  • The lead also makes several claims (such as being known for certain produce) that I can't quite pull out of the article...
  • Farm status; this sentence threw mean. You're talking about the modern land?
  • Many of the sentences in the article are very long and run on through commas. Some of the main culprits get quite confusing. One of the most common problems is inserting unrelated factoids into a sentence, which loses me as a reader.
  • You fail to explain some terms (what is "certified milk")?

Unfortunately I can't support this at the current time; it's not too far off what I'd consider a FA but there are some style issues running throughout that I can't get round. --Errant (chat!) 21:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrantX: I merely requested comments, I wasn't asking for any sort of support. I knew it's at a stage where a few people here and again may have comments, and I'll be happy to work through them.
  • I described to MPJ-DK about the country seat element above. I suppose I could find a source and input information about the aspects of a country seat, however I thought that was too off-topic for this already voluminous article. What do you think?
  • As for the second bullet: it's really just a list of relevant aspects of the farm's operations. The aspects may cover different parts of the operation and therefore might not seem to correlate, but they're all aspects of how the farm operated.
  • As for the third bullet, it's hard for me to see how the lead doesn't adequately summarize. Perhaps explain a few key points it misses?
  • The fourth bullet - which produce? However I can easily find a citation for any goods produced that are listed there.
  • The fifth bullet - yes. Admittedly it's not the best wording for that section title. I couldn't and can't think of anything better. Do you have a suggested alternative title?
  • The sixth bullet - please provide specific cases.
  • The seventh bullet - Again, this isn't too relevant to the article, however if an article (or section of the "Milk" article) is created on the topic of certified milk, I will link to it. The topic itself likely cannot be described succinctly in the Farms article, as the definition of "certified milk" not only has changed historically, but also has different definitions depending on your location.
Thank you for your comments. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed your reply!
  • I think the issue is twofold on this segment; the featured article criteria is quite firm about meeting the guidelines of WP:LEAD which is itself firm that content in the lead must appear in the article body. Secondly I'm no copyright expert but the source material and that sentence look so close as to risk being close paraphrasing combined a practical American business model with the concept of a European country sea vs. combines the idea of a European country seat with a very practical American business end. I'm not sure. It's possibly okay? I know how hard it can be to re-construct information from sources.
  • The article lead claims the farm was known for milk etc. but I can find nothing in the article body that says this? So it's not so much about that the farm did produce it but that it "was known for its milk, butter, and cream" (i.e. those specific products). I might be nitpicking.
  • I'm at work so when I get home I'll add some more context and examples on the remainder of my comments :) --08:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@ErrantX: I'll attempt some way to input some more information in the body about the country seat aspect. I do not think you should be worried about paraphrasing there. I use a few similar terms because they are the acceptable terms to use. I reword pretty much every other word in that sentence, and actually parts of those terms as well. This is the farthest-out paraphrasing concern I've seen, and I've seen many; most are far, far worse. And I'm sorry, but you really are nitpicking about the 'known for/did produce' aspect. I remember seeing it in one of the sources I've used, but it was far too long ago for me to recall. However, it's evident that it was primarily a dairy farm producing milk and butter, and those three products were the only ones sent to the Paris Exhibition, where they received prizes. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree; merely rewording words isn't quite enough. Per the guidance on this topic it is not just word choice but word ordering and sentence structure that speak to this piece. Either way; I fairly exhaustively checked the rest of the article and can't see any other issues.
  • was known for its milk, butter, and cream and also produced other; not to beat a dead horse but I suggest primarily produced milk, butter, and cream and also other might better suit what you (from above comments) are trying to communicate. My reading of that sentence seems to imply that the farm was e.g. widely known in the public eye for quality milk etc. the extent that people would be talking about "Briarcliffe Milk" (that might be true; but I can't see anything in the article that fits).
  • Regarding the country seat aspect; I still think that it needs to be in the article body & that it would be worth expanding on what is meant by "country seat" (the American enterprise of it seems well described). Is it referring to the layout for example, or the house, or how people lived there? I've read through the rest of the article several times now, in detail, and I can't pull up too many more issues;
  • School of Practical Agriculture; this section, second paragraph has a quotation that does not have an in-line citation?
  • The school's progress was followed by members of the public interested in agricultural education.; what is that trying to say? That it was important in the public consciousness? Why?
  • This is merely a style thing; but there are a lot of citations inside a sentence. This coupled with many commas has made it difficult for me as a reader to follow the flow of the article.
  • Revisiting the certified milk thing; the article makes a novel claim (that this was one of the first farms to produce certified milk); the reader is effectively missing a trick in the absence of an article. For now (to be complete) I think this article would need a clarification (like, literally a sentence) to explain it.*
  • US vs. U.S. - suggest being consistent in choosing one or other
  • In a 1900 publication; is it worth being explicit about which publications you refer to in these sentences. Rather than hiding it from the reader?
  • Particularly the Operations section comes across as a list of facts about the farm. Which is okay but for the reader kind of exhausting and sometimes lacking context. For example, the paragraph Briarcliff Farms operated a printing press... seems to list various diversifications of the farm or other but you don't introduce that. It's not much change, just a little extra framework to the content would help contextualise the reader :)

--Errant (chat!) 13:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but with this depth of commentary and no clear support for promotion after a month, this is looking more like a PR than anything, so I'll archive it and ask you to work on improvements outside the FAC process, after which you can renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Briarcliff_Farms/archive2&oldid=709607989"