Talk:Downtown Ossining Historic District/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 08:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hello, This seems like an interesting article and I am familiar with the area, so it's fun to remember it. My approach is to read through the article and address any issues by section... and make minor edits (commas, links, etc.) that can be changed if you don't agree. And, then assess the GA criteria. Let me know if you have any thoughts as I go through the review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comment[edit]

You have an interesting writing style that involves the reader and causes me, specifically, to stop and think what you are saying. It is like you are stepping back in time sometimes and walking through the streets at that time. In many ways, having someone stop and think — and envisioning what is happening back in time, is fun. But, it also can be a bit confusing for an encyclopedia article where the historic district is defined and construction has been completed. Most of the comments below are for minor tweaks to words or phrases, like "would be" to "was", etc.

Thanks! I do view writing within the MOS constraints and yet keeping the reader interested as a challenge to be heartily accepted, especially for anyone who's ever written professionally and knows that engaged readers = food on the table. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you do a great job of keeping the reader interested... and I am guessing you have no problem keeping food on the table.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I have a lot of comments here. That seems the nature of the beast for architectural-related articles where there is a lot of detail. I am more than happy to help if there are some sections that you'd be happy to have me respond to comments/suggestions. (I just went through a couple of GA reviews of my articles, one of which was very detailed GA review, and totally get how tough it it to process a lot of edits.) Just let me know if / where I can help, and I'd be happy to jump in.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally gotten the time to start looking over your punch list, and will make notes and {{done}}s as merited. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! And, I have now learned a new term - punch list!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and infobox[edit]

  • Regarding One of its contributing properties, the First Baptist Church of Ossining, had already been listed on the Register in 1973. "was" is a little crisper than "had already been".
Changed to "was previously". Having studied Russian in college, I've gotten very attuned to the differences in meaning aspect creates (since it's very important in Russian), and here I chose the past perfect to make the point that the district's listing does not supersede the church's, and since it was a single event that happened at a discrete, identifiable point in the past. But the adverb works just as well.
Great, thanks.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since "crossroads" was already used, the article says the village (called Sing Sing at that time) began in 1813, and "began" sounds like it built itself, what do you think about changing Ossining began at the crossroads in the late 18th century, to "Ossining was established in the early 19th century"? Or, if you really like crossroads, "Ossining was established at the crossroads in the early 19th century"?
Changed to "began developing". "Established" usually denotes the legal and political incorporation of the village, which was some time off at that point.
Thanks,  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along with should follow the other item, rather than the river, in: and continued to prosper as industry developed along the nearby shore of the Hudson River, along with Sing Sing prison and the railroad. What about something like "and continued to prosper as industry, along with Sing Sing prison and the railroad, developed beside the nearby shore of the Hudson River."?
 Done Much better. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For The downtown area was fully developed by then, but two events later in the century reshaped it. Wouldn't it be "The downtown area was fully developed by the mid-19th century, but two events later in the century reshaped it. - since the railroad and aqueduct came in the mid-19th century?
 Done You're right ... as it was it looked like we were still referring to the mid-18th century.
Excellent.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought, what about changing most that remain thus date from that period to the early 1930s. to "thus most that remain date from that period to the early 1930s."?
 Done and I think that means we can go back to a comma since the two clauses are now cause and effect.
Sounds perfect!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the infobox, it seems strange that it says that the town\district started to be built in 1840, rather than 1813. And all building did not stop in 1933, I assume. Anyway, I don't think the years are needed at all, since that generally refers to a specific building or set of buildings, not an entire district. Just a thought.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am rethinking this. It may be that the nomination form for the district set those dates (I haven't read the nomination form yet.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the infobox was, I think, put in before I really started working on the article, and whatever the article might lead you to believe we have usually reflected the NPS's claims in the infobox where we repeat them. Even if they seem to be at a variance with what the nomination form's narrative says. Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I see from the nomination form that the period of significance is 1840 to 1933, same as what is in the infobox.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just acknowledging this ... I'll get back to you on this later. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. Obviously I have more sections to go through. I will get back to this later as well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

  • I am not understanding the value of Its boundaries mostly follow lot lines and curbs.
Changed to "property lines and street curbs". Yeah, not everyone realizes what "lot" means in that context, and I took note of the district boundary following the street curbs because usually they run in the middle of the street (not that has much practical effect ... if the local government needs to rip up the street to put in a new sewer line or whatever, it doesn't make much of a difference whether it's in the district or not, unless the infrastructure is itself contributing, and how often does that happen?).
  • I don't understand the use of "respectively" in drops of almost 100 feet (30 m) to the Sing Sing Kill gorge and Hudson respectively.[5]
Taken out. I think originally I had had different values.
  • Is the point of As a result of its proximity to these bluffs there is a view across the Hudson. that from the top of the bluffs, there are views across the Hudson?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "the district has a view across the Hudson", which is what I meant to get across. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! This section looks good and is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

What do you think about replacing "them" with "the historic buildings" in the first paragraph?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "those buildings". Seems a little redundant to me since there's no other possible antecedent for "them", but I'm not the only reader, of course. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, thanks! This is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1680s: Formation of the town[edit]

  • It's a personal preference to use "Native Americans" rather than Indians, but I will leave it to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Native American tribe" since their name is known. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1780s–1840s: Crossroads and port[edit]

  • Regarding He also started holding prayer meetings at his house and those of others who came to settle,... What do you think of replacing "and those of others who came to settle" to "other settler's houses"? Or "He also started holding prayer meetings at his and other settler's houses" if you were avoiding redundancy of the word "house"?
I went with your second suggestion and then turned the comma into a semicolon.
  • It looks as if "was built" is not needed in Five years later, the local economy was further bolstered when the state built Sing Sing, one of its first prisons, was built on the river just to the southwest of the village.[10]:34
 Done Ouch!
  • This sentence seems to have too many thoughts. Perhaps it could be broken into two sentences? Marble quarried by convicts was used to build not only the prison but several other buildings in the area, including Ossining's oldest church, St. Paul's, now Calvary Episcopal Church, downtown outside the historic district, and elsewhere, such as the steps of the state capitol and New York City Hall.[10]:57–62 Stuck out. After rereading, it is wordy, but it is ok.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In The two churches grew with the village - isn't it three churches (Presbyterian, Baptist, St. Paul's). If you are not counting St. Paul's because it's outside of the district, perhaps that sentence could become a note.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to take out the number. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1840s–1870: The railroad comes to Ossining[edit]

  • I am not understanding the part about "same site..." In 1850, the First National Bank built its first building at what is today the same site occupied by its successor at South Highland and Croton.[10]:215
 Done Yeah, that looked bad ... like one of my favorite tautologies in too many NRHP articles: "first built".
Another new word for me, tautologies! I am betting before the end of this review, there will be a third! I can feel myself getting smarter.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last sentence, does at the First Battle of Bull Run.[10]:80[c] refer to all 42 men, just those with the "Sing Sing Tigers"? If all 42 died at Bull Run, perhaps you could use long dashes rather than commas around "any with the "Sing Sing Tigers", Company F of the 17th Volunteer Regiment of New York State" If it was just the Sing Sing Tigers, perhaps the sentence could be tweaked a bit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing that source, I decided to cut that part as it seems that the volunteers' service at Bull Run (and I suppose that those who did live got to tell the youth of Ossining, in their later years, that old saw that ends in "yep ... and them that didn't is there yet.") is really a distinct statement from their deaths that the local historian understandably wants to brag about, but that is not really relevant for the monument's presence in the downtown historic district. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it!

1870–1910: Industrial prosperity[edit]

  • Second paragraph. Does "about the war" sound better than "on the war"?
 Done
  • Is where he opened an office in 1872, two years after finishing his Ossining church.[1]:21–22 necessary? It seems like an unnecessary detail.
 Done I think the NRHP nom writer wanted to show off. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph. I am lost with built the block named for it. I am guessing that the block is named Barlow (something).
It ---> them. Clearer antecedent. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing these edits in history. The last edits were made to the 1840s–1870: The railroad comes to Ossining section here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. I see them now. This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1910–1933: Public buildings[edit]

  • Tense issue with In 1914, the bank buildings would be. It is better to say "were" than "would be".
 Done
  • Regarding A new commercial building at 201–203 Main Street used the Spanish Colonial Revival, with a tiled pent-roofed parapet and stucco face. The way "used" is used and no word following Revival makes the sentence awkward. Perhaps something like, "The Spanish Colonial Revival commercial building at 201–203 Main Street used a tiled pent-roofed parapet and stucco face.
 Done
  • Regarding The early 1920s brought the end to some more Ossining institutions, even as the village's population reached 12,000, I am not sure what you are referring to with "some more" perhaps the sentence could be edited to something like "The early 1920s brought an end to some of Ossining institutions, even as the village's population reached 12,000,"
 Done I decided "changes" was better.
  • Fifth paragraph: "themselves" is not needed in "were themselves demolished".
 Done
  • Ossining High School would be that year's most distinguished addition. reads better with "was" rather than would be.
 Done
  • Same issue with "would be" in The new high school would be on the site of Careswell,... perhaps "was built"
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1934–present: Preservation, urban renewal and redevelopment[edit]

  • Regarding As the Great Depression set in and construction slowed, one more public building would complete the district. "completed" is crisper and better tense than "would complete"
 Done
  • I don't understand It had been in excess of its original design capacity since 1937. can you state this in a more straight-forward manner? Is it that the student body increased beyond the original design capacity?
Rephrased to make clear what was originally intended.
  • I am confused by The new wing, completed in 1957, was first used for the junior high school students (since then a separate building has been constructed for those students and the entire building is used by the high school). Are the junior high school students in a new wing or in a separate building? Why is the entire building now used by the high school (wasn't it always?) Are junior high school students those who are one year away from being senior high school students (i.e., part of the high school population)? Or, are they middle school students? In "Since then", "then" is not needed.
I decided to move that to a note.
  • What does "architecturally sympathetic" mean?
See the first two definitions. Basically, a structure architecturally sympathetic to a neighboring one is one that, though built in a different time where different styles predominate, is meant not to clash too much with it. Usually, if the old building is, say, faced in buff brick, you face the neighboring one the same way, you try to echo the original building's forms and shape, you don't build it larger. The Louvre Pyramid defines this by being an excellent counterexample; Robert Venturi's Sainsbury Wing on London's National Gallery is by contrast a good example of building something sympathetic to a neighboring/adjoining historic structure (some critics said at the time it was too sympathetic, actually ... sort of like the new arrival in the exclusive neighborhood at his first cocktail party, trying hard to blend in and not stand out too much at this point).
Thanks! That is the first time I heard that expression.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a change in and developed or planned to develop new reservoirs in the Catskills and further up the Croton River watershed, so it needed the water that had gone through Ossining less. to "and developed or planned to develop new reservoirs in the Catskills and further up the Croton River watershed, so it needed less water from the Ossining aqueduct.
 Done
  • Regarding Urban renewal funds were still available to affected communities.[17] Is the point that monies set aside for the highway along the Hudson could be used for other urban renewal projects?
Yes, and I have added wording to that effect.
  • Is the point of The 1971 plan had recognized the importance of the buildings on the north side of Main, and historic preservation soon played a larger role in downtown. that the buildings on the north side of Main Street were recognized for their archaeological heritage and the 1971 plan focused on historic preservation of those and other downtown buildings?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (You do mean "architectural", not "archaeological", I hope ). I added "planning" ... hopefully that
Lol. Yes, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cropped out the orange cone in this image. See what you think.
 Done I think I had originally had the cone in there to indicate that it was pedestrians and bicycles only, but yeah, that got lost. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the point of All three bank buildings became vacant. that the bank buildings in the historic district closed and were left vacant?
Yes; reworded.
  • I don't understand what events in the years immediately afterward testified to the need for it. means. Were there events hosted by restaurants? Was it the success of < kind of events > that testified for the need for restaurants downtown... or the need for a plan?
I just decided to take that out (it was a way of transitioning into the next sentence that I don't think, on further reflection, that we need).
  • "Another" in Two years later, another developer acquired the Ossining National Bank Building made me stop reading and look around for who the developer was being compared to. Does it mean that there were several developers who worked on renovating historic buildings. Was there a developer who owned the building after it was closed and vacant, but didn't complete construction? (i.e., is "another" needed in this sentence?)
Changed to just "a". I think that may have made sense originally but at some point I edited the reference to the other developer out.
  • Does "in the latter" refer to something in that sentence or "the 147–155 Main properties"?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Significant contributing properties[edit]

  • I posted a question about the use of boldface for contributing properties here. Please comment, Daniel Case, if you have something to add.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reply here states that bolding of the contributing properties does not conform with MOS:BOLD and that the asterisks for each item act as a separator.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked at MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and came to the same conclusion. Will fix when I am able to get to it (I was actually out on the longest trip I've taken, with my son, since the lockdowns began all afternoon, and I'm also working on another GA review. But I intend to attend your comments soon. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I hope you had a nice time with your son.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have been busy with wording changes, so I took care of this one.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to have the addresses in the captions for the images.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added addresses to the captions, too.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't do that because the addresses are usually in the accompanying text. But ... I'm willing to be open about it, and you doing it has reminded me that I often say that we have to account for readers not always looking at the whole article, therefore a sort of belt-and-suspenders approach, as redundant as it seems to us as editors, may serve them better. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really enjoying this section and subsections. It really helps having a list with key information about the properties. Great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are happy with the bold face and caption changes here, this section is done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the First Baptist and the First Presbyterian churches have the same address (34 South Highland Avenue) in this article. Is the First Baptist Church address 1 Church Street?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case, Please note / verify: I fixed 2 churches with the same address. I wasn't able to open the nomination form, but found First Baptist is at 1 Church Street, per their website.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson: Yes, they're right ... I can't get the nom form open right now either but both church's websites support their addresses. I must have gotten confused by the similar names (and them being rather near each other). Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for checking!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you find the address change to be correct, this section looks good and is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places[edit]

Other contributing properties[edit]

  • Regarding Building at 127 Main Street. This more elaborate Renaissance Revival building, with brick pilasters and a metal cornice with intermediate cornice, dates to 1885.[1]:25, please add "an" before "intermediate cornice".
 Done
  • Regarding the "First Presbyterian Church" property, the first full sentence ends with a preposition. Since you define Trinity as the breakaway congregation, perhaps "they had been sharing it with" is not needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed, although I reject that rule that sentences cannot end with prepositions because a) it was imported into English from Latin, where it is less grammatical, by grammarians who believed that Latin was the most perfect language possible (the same reason we're not supposed to split infinitives) and b) any preposition that dangles that way really, IMO, is more of an adverb in function than preposition. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It reads better, so thanks for making the change. This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoning and regulation[edit]

  • I fixed a typo and added commas here.
  • In this section, Ossining is referred to as a village, but I think I read in Contributing properties that it was a town from 1934. Perhaps I missed something. Is it no longer a town? Or, perhaps it's township?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The town government moved its operations into village hall that year (In New York, villages like the one I live in are politically part of, though not subordinate to, the town or towns they are in—we vote in town elections and pay town property taxes as well as those in our village). Daniel Case (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks! I used to live in an adjacent town and did not know that. I now see from the town article that it includes two villages, the Village of Ossining and part of Briarcliff Manor.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals in comprehensive plan[edit]

  • Regarding A Main Street Manager could be appointed to concentrate on downtown, and a business improvement district created, is the point that "Creation of a business improvement district and appointment of a Main Street Manager, would make the development of downtown businesses more effective and efficient."?
 Done
  • Regarding The plan also recommends both improving cultural offerings downtown, and promoting more residential and office use to increase foot traffic around the clock. does "around the clock" mean that it Ossining is proposing to have 24-hour businesses? Or, maybe "around the clock" is not necessary?
Changed to "at more times of day". I suspect what the village was referring to is Jane Jacobs' observation in The Death and Life of Great American Cities that successful, vibrant urban neighborhoods generally are the ones with people on the streets in the evening as well as the business day (that's her major critique of the "courts of honor" the City Beautiful movement championed, that they created downtown areas busy with workers during the day but deserted at night).
Okay. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says "The village should study..."? If it's the plan, perhaps the sentence could start out with "Further,".
 Done
  • Regarding Other measures to enhance the connection include signage, improved walkways and lighting, and leaving space for river views. perhaps "leaving" could be replaced by "dedicated" or another non-ing word.
 Done And to think I teach kids in my SAT classes all the time about how they have to watch out for exactly this sort of faulty parallelism.
I totally get it! I am surprised by my silly mistakes at times.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Several months later the village put out a request for proposal to hire a planning firm as its consultant,[41] and seeking residents willing to serve on the committee. how about changing "seeking" to "identify"?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that this is done, but that's ok. It was a minor edit. I moved the citation for the first part of the sentence to the end of the sentence. It looks like that is covered on page 5.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of district and regulatory agencies' powers[edit]

  • The first paragraph is mostly written as something that needs to be done, but these elements of the 2009 plan were done in 2013. It just needs a bit of tweaking to the tense to reflect that this information is as of 2020.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! This section is done as well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Comments[edit]

  • The article is generally well-written in a nice style. There are some places where the words need a little tightening up, put in the correct tense, etc.
  • Regarding reliability of sources, I am unsure of Patch for a GA article, particularly the one that essentially is a cut-and-paste of a press release. I have a subscription to newspapers.com and will see if I can find replacements which I will save as viewable clippings.
I added a source for the second patch citation for Hudson Crossing at Market Square. I left the Patch citation to the press release for info not covered by the business journal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is generally focused, but there are a few cases where there is extraneous detail, as mentioned in the sections above.
  • As mentioned in Contributing properties, I recommend adding the address, since that is how they are generally identified.
  • There are no copyvio issues, just titles of things and a quote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for all your hard work on this article, Daniel Case! I know it must have seemed tedious for all the minor edits, but I hope you find the article, which was already good, is polished a bit more. You made it a very interesting read! Great job!
And I can add "punch list", "architecturally sympathetic", and "tautologies" to my lexicon... and the village/town concept to my view of Westchester municipalities.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_Ossining_Historic_District/GA1&oldid=951928472"