Talk:Merchant's House Museum/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 13:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: V.B.Speranza (talk · contribs) 21:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Checkup

I don’t seem to see any reason not to pass GA! Great job…

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Again, upon further verification, I see no problems with the article at all. V.B.Speranza (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@V.B.Speranza: Thanks for the comments. While I do appreciate your taking the time to look at this article, this review seems fairly cursory. Though I would like to think highly of my own writing, I'm trying to use the GAN process to ascertain what (if anything) needs to be improved, and it is pretty unlikely that the article has no mistakes at all. Moreover, due to the shortness of this review, I am not sure whether the sources were spotchecked properly.

I hope you do not mind if I request a second opinion for this review at WT:GAN. Epicgenius (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything really wrong with the article but I would suggest you ask for a second opinion. Last thing you wanted it to be overturned.Moxy🍁 01:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I've asked for a second opinion at WT:GAN. Epicgenius (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Epicgenius, this article is exceptionally well-written and comprehensive, and goes considerably above and beyond the GAN criteria in my opinion. Therefore, there probably isn't need for additional feedback as part of the GAN process.

If I were to GAN review this article, I'm struggling to see anything I could fault. I gave a brief copyedit to some formatting issues with em-dashes, but I don't think this would stop it passing GAN.

I would say if you want more detailed feedback on the page, you should consider requesting a thorough peer review or just skip that step and go straight to nominating this for featured articles. This article is really pretty exceptional in the current form. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Another opinion I think it would be useful to see evidence that some spot checks were done on sources. I agree with the reviewers above that the article's prose is up to GA standards, and I certainly can't see anything that would cause a quick fail. I'll do ten spot checks for the record, and comment on anything else I see. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Epicgenius and V.B.Speranza; I hope this is helpful. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  @BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for the comments (I didn't get the ping). I will be able to resolve these by tomorrow. I can also send the CSM source to you off-wiki if you want. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks

• The current museum was built as one of six identical houses on the same block - no issues.
• Although Tredwell had been a successful businessman during his career, he was not well known outside of his community - no issues. (Some of that source feels like it's from another age!)
• The only surviving sister, Gertrude, had reportedly become a recluse after her father banned her from marrying a Roman Catholic physician - part of the story is in the LPC source, I'll AGF that the rest is in Erskine.
• The ceilings of the drawing rooms, which were physically beginning to peel apart due to vibrations from traffic, were tied together with wire - no issues.
• The city was in the midst of a severe fiscal crisis, leading the Christian Science Monitor to describe the renovation as "a bright spot in these sad times for New York City" - I don't have access to this, will add another.
• Gardiner opposed the hotel's construction - no issues.
• Kalodop then sued to reverse the City Council's decision, claiming that they planned to ensure that the house would not be damaged - no issues.
• The Seabury Tredwell House is likely the only house in New York City with a fully preserved 19th-century interior - no issues.
• There is allegedly a secret passage in the wall between the two first-floor parlors, which leads up to a drawer between the second-story master bedrooms. - consistent with the LPC source, I'll AGF on CSM.
• The LPC designated the Seabury Tredwell House as one of the city's first 20 exterior landmarks in October 1965 - no issues.
• The same year, Joseph Roberto received a certificate of merit from the Municipal Art Society for his work on the house's restoration

Other

• Earwig's Copyvio detector shows a 30.1% match with the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission source. However, looking at this in detail, I'm satisfied that the matches that aren't titles etc. are all appropriate per WP:LIMITED. The next two-highest matches are due to titles etc, os I have no concerns about copyvio.
• I assume that "Old Merchant's House Inc." is in bold because it should redirect here, but it didn't directly do so for me.
• "Historical view of the exterior" caption - consider adding in the year.