Talk:Sloan–Parker House/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: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 04:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Quick fail criteria assessment[edit]

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Main review[edit]

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

Lead

  • Infobox — "c. 1900 (frame addition)" and "June 5, 1975" don't need citations, since they're cited in the article. Any reason why "1.5 acres (0.61 ha)" is not in the article other than in the infobox?
  • I've added 1.5 acres (0.61 ha) to the prose with the internal citation. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "18th-century" — Hyphen is inconsistent with convention followed in rest of article.
Comment – This is incorrect. The word "century", preceded by "18th" or "19th", appears four times in the article. In only the first instance is it used adjectivally, thus requiring a comma hyphen between "18th" and "century". In the other three instances, it is used as a noun, so no comma hyphen is required.  – Corinne (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)  – Corinne (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, thanks. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The house ... Mill Creek valley." — Consider making this the second sentence, since the first has more to do with location.
Comment – Just my opinion: I think the first paragraph of the lead is fine as it is. I don't think it is a good idea to overload the beginning of the article with details of location. These details are less important and less interesting than the other information in the first paragraph.  – Corinne (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a large tract" — Suggest "a large tract of land".
Comment – Agree.  – Corinne (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sloan ran away and eloped" — "ran away" is a bit redundant, suggest just "Sloan eloped".
Comment – Agree – except that he was an indentured servant, so running away is akin to escaping his position of servitude, but "eloped" contains the meaning of running away, so I guess it's all right to leave out "ran away"; a stylistic choice.  – Corinne (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Suggest either either adding a comma ("Sloan ran away, and eloped with Van Horn's daughter") or rephrasing to "Sloan ran away, eloping with Van Horn's daughter". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the short version, "Sloan eloped with Van Horn's daughter", is all right. When readers read that, they will know he ran away from his position.  – Corinne (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified this so that it only says eloped, which somewhat implies that they ran away. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Parker family ... to travelers." — Bit of a run-on, suggest splitting in two.
Comment – Are you referring to this sentence in the third paragraph of the lead? –
  • The Parker family operated a stagecoach line on the Moorefield and North Branch Turnpike stage line between the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O) Main Line at Green Spring and Moorefield, with a stop at the Stone House where the family served meals to travelers.
The sentence is not ungrammatical (usually "a run-on sentence" is ungrammatical). I think it reads fine. If you break it up into two sentences, how would you word the second one? Something like this? –
  • The journey included a stop at the Stone House where the family served meals to travelers.
Putting this information in a separate sentence places more emphasis on it, emphasis which mean may not be needed in the lead.  – Corinne (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply that the sentence is ungrammatical, just that all the details in the middle ("Moorefield and North Branch Turnpike stage line between the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O) Main Line at Green Spring and Moorefield"), which mean nothing to me and presumably most readers not familiar with the area, jumble it up and make it seem particularly long. I like your proposal above ("The journey included..."); perhaps using a semicolon instead of a period after "Spring and Moorefield" would ameliorate the emphasis concerns. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good idea.  – Corinne (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed this into two sentences, one stating that they ran a stage coach stop, and another stating that the journey included a stop at the Stone House where the family served meals to travelers. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Stone House was utilized by both Union and Confederate forces" — Meaning they stayed there? "utilized" is a bit vague.
  • Visited would probably work better here so I've changed it to "visited." -- West Virginian (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1910. As of 2017" — There's a century-long gap here. What happened between 1910 and 2017? Also, may as well update to 2018.
  • Unfortunately, the available sources do not cover the house and farm's history between 1910 and 2018 other than it being open for historic house tours. I have gone ahead and updated 2017 to 2018. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "original stone section (built c. 1790)" — You could just say "original Stone House", since you've already described that, and its approximate year of erection, in the second paragraph.
Comment – Hmm, yes, but since the phrase "original fieldstone section" is used at the beginning of the second paragraph in the lead, "original stone section" makes sense, especially since this sentence at the beginning of the fourth paragraph of the lead is contrasting two sections, one of stone and the other of wood. If you prefer "house" to section, I would not capitalize it: "the original stone house"; then you have to repeat "the original stone house" later in the sentence. If you use "the original Stone House" early in the sentence, what are you going to use toward the end of the sentence? You'd have to repeat "the original Stone House" or shorten it to "the original house". Which reads better to you?
(a) As of 2017, the Sloan–Parker House consists of the original stone section (built c. 1790), which faces toward the Northwestern Turnpike, and a wooden frame addition (built c. 1900) positioned perpendicular to the original stone section.
(b) As of 2017, the Sloan–Parker House consists of the original stone house (built c. 1790), which faces toward the Northwestern Turnpike, and a wooden frame addition (built c. 1900) positioned perpendicular to the original stone house.
(c) As of 2017, the Sloan–Parker House consists of the original Stone House (built c. 1790), which faces toward the Northwestern Turnpike, and a wooden frame addition (built c. 1900) positioned perpendicular to the original house.  – Corinne (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "the original stone section" is used several times in the "Architecture" section.  – Corinne (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer (a) or (c), but I don't think "(built c. 1790)" is needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like (a) has been incorporated already. Please let me know if this requires any further adjustments in the meantime and I'll make them ASAP. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The attic rafters ... during construction." — Seems like a pretty minor detail for the lead, unless you're trying to make the point that lots of the old parts are still there.
Comment – Agree. Also, this detail is a bit technical. Perhaps reserve for body of article, where is it is already.  – Corinne (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and setting

  • "0.75 miles (1.21 km) ... 4.4 miles (7.1 kilometres)" — Inconsistent abbreviation, and why British English? There are some other examples of both of these problems in the article, which I suggest checking for.
Comment –  Done Made abbreviations consistent. Conversions are usually given (if someone is willing to take the time to add them) in most articles. U.S. measurements should be given first in an article written in American English, which they are here, and, at least to my mind, there is no need to spell out the British equivalent measurement in full. West Virginian, did you have a particular reason for doing so?  – Corinne (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "British English" I was referring to the face that metre ('re', not 'er') and kilometre were being used instead of meter and kilometer. This is rendered moot by using m and km instead. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think the -re spellings are gone now.  – Corinne (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique, thank you for pointing this out! Corinne, thank you for making the fix! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "Charles II renewed" — Suggest "he renewed".  Done
  • "favoring original grantee" — Should this be "favoring original grantees"?  Done -- West Virginian (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Lord Colepeper, and Lord Colepeper" — Suggest "to Lord Colepeper, who".  Done  – Corinne (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan family ownership

  • "Sloan was charged" — Suggest "he was charged".  Done
  • "an indentured servant under an indenture with David Van Horn." — Suggest "an indentured servant of David Van Horn."  Done (unless there is a particular reason to include "an indenture").  – Corinne (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "daughter Charlotte, and the couple" — Suggest "daughter Charlotte; the couple".  Done
  • " they encountered fat cattle" — "fat cattle" sounds odd.  Done
  • "Creek valley on which" — Suggest a comma after "valley".  Done
  • "6½ cents per day" — How about giving a parenthetical "(nnn in 2018 dollars)"?
  • Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a reputable calculator that will convert US currency from that long ago. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "afforded them sufficient space to raise them." — Suggest "afforded the couple sufficient space to raise them."  Done
  • "Sloan counterpanes became well known." — Well known in the area, or did they achieve broader recognition?
  • They become well known regionally, so I've caveated this in the lede and in this section. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard and Charlotte Sloan used a method of casting lots to decide which of their ten children should marry." — Any more on this? Why? Why only one of ten?
  • Unfortunately, this is all the available information I have for this. I was quite curious myself while I was researching this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Sloan also served" — Suggest "He also served".  Done
  • "to the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850 representing" — Suggest a comma after "1850".  Done
  • "the District of Frederick, Hampshire and Morgan." — Is that one district, or three? Does district need to be capitalized? Changed "District" to "district". Don't know about the other question.  – Corinne (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corinne, this district consisted of all three counties. We could even re-word this as "a district comprising Frederick, Hampshire, and Morgan counties." Let me know what you think works best here. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've modified this to "representing a district comprised of Frederick, Hampshire, and Morgan counties." -- West Virginian (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parker family ownership

  • "thus allowing stagecoach" — The "thus" is unnecessary.  Done Removed "thus". I think "thus" would be appropriate if it were made clear what was special about this new connection, such as connection a north-south route with an east-west route. Right now, it is not clear to any reader not familiar with the area what was special about this new route.  – Corinne (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Moorefield until" — Suggest comma after "Moorefield".  Done Slight re-wording.
  • "the line's stagecoaches would stop for meals" — Pretty sure stagecoaches don't eat...  Done I thought it was clear enough, but I changed it.
  • "to announce its arrival" — Should be "their arrival".  Done Changed "the stagecoaches" to "a stagecoach". I think singular works all right here.
  • "major destruction" — Suggest "major damage",  Done
  • "Benjamin Parker married Isabel" — Abrupt transition. Do you know what year? If so, "In nnnn, Benjamin Parker married Isabel..." would work.
  • I wasn't available to find this year in my online resources and in my library hardcopy resources. I've changed the sentence to this "One of the Parker brothers, Benjamin Parker, married Isabel "Belle" Parker and they had two sons together: " -- West Virginian (talk)
  • "was residing at" — I think this should be "were residing at".  Done -- West Virginian (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1962 John Henry, Sr., and Kate Parker's son John Henry Parker, Jr., was residing" — This is pretty confusing. Suggest "By 1962 John Henry Parker, Jr., the son of John Henry, Sr. and Kate Parker, was residing".  Done -- West Virginian (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ruth Harmison Parker ... Parker families." — Run-on. Suggest breaking up with "Society. She and her".  Done West Virginian, the times when they opened the house are odd: in 1962 and in July 1976? Did the tours continue past July 1976? Was a new exhibit opened in July 1976?
  • Corinne, thank you for modifying this bit! I included these house tours as they were some of the few historical events that I could find during the 20th century. There may have been exhibitions or tours at the house on other dates, but I just wasn't able to find those events in the local newspapers. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Stone section

  • "This window was added after the wooden frame section was added" — Two close uses of "added", not to mention the one in the next sentence.  Done Did some re-wording.  – Corinne (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the original fieldstone was replaced with brick" — Suggest "has been replaced".  Done
  • "The interior of the stone section contains two floors, each with two rooms." — Suggest adding ", in addition to a basement and attic" or similar after "rooms".
  • Changed to "The interior of the stone section contains two floors, each with two rooms, in addition to a basement and attic." -- West Virginian (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They contain markings of letters and numbers" — Suggest "They still contain..."  Done
  • "the stone section's flooring and hardware on the doors" — Here, and in lead, suggest putting "the" in front of "hardware", as commas after "flooring" and "doors".  Done in both places.  – Corinne (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancillary structures

  • "an old log smokehouse and" — Suggest a comma after "smokehouse", to make it clear that only the barn was erected in 1803.  Done
  • "Widely spaced unhewn logs" — I see it's from the source, but any idea what it means?
Comment – Well, the word "hewn" is used quite a bit in Log house.Also, Wiktionary has it as an entry at unhewn. What's not clear to me is how these logs were positioned – in the floors, in the walls, in the rafters? – "Widely spaced unhewn logs are located within the barn's interior and on its south elevation." Also, a non-expert might not be able to picture the difference between unhewn logs and wooden framing. Perhaps link "wooden framing" to Framing (construction).  – Corinne (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unhewn usually means unfinished, so this could mean that the logs were not stripped of their bark or were not smoothed out. I didn't want to speculate how unhewn was meant here since the source was vague. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery

  • "Richard Sloan's son, War of 1812 veteran Major General John Sloan," — This is a bit confusing, because it could technically mean two different people, one of whom (Richard Sloan's son) you're describing instead of naming. Since you've already said he was a veteran of that war, I would just say "Richard Sloan's son John Sloan,".
  • Changed to "Other burials in the cemetery include Richard Sloan's son, Major General John Sloan," -- West Virginian (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS):

Just minor issues (e.g., kilometres) noted above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):

  • Ref 1: Is there a reason the date is a hyphenated parenthetical here, instead of spelled out like the others?
  • Ref 1, 7, 34, 35: Is the NPS/USGS technically the author of these, or just the publisher?
  • The NPS/USGS (respectively) are the technical authors and publishers of these. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2, 3, 4, 18, 20, 22, 31, 32: Not a big deal, but I don't think you need to say "of the PDF file" unless there's a separate numbering system you're explicitly not following.
  • I added "of the PDF file" here because the listed page numbers are numbered based on the section of the form. To avoid confusion, I place "of the PDF file" so the user knows which page of the PDF they could go to for the cited source location. I'm open to other alternatives, too. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough; there's probably no perfect solution, but if "of the pdf file" sacrifices some elegance, it at least avoids any confusion. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23: To follow convention of other refs should be "pp. 333–4."
  • Ref 24: Do you mean that to be an ellipsis? There are only two dots ("..").
  • Ref 24, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49: Not sure you need the retrieval dates, since they're originally print publications that won't change.
  • Because these are from online resources, I wanted to ensure that the "retrieval dates" were included should these online resources change their links. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31: Any reason you say "pp. 3 & 4" instead of "pp. 3–4"?
  • Ref 50: Is Charles C. Hall the author of the page?
  • Mr. Hall is indeed the author of this page, so I've modified the template accordingly. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hampshire County Arts Council (2006): Any OCLC or other numerical identifier available?
  • Unfortunately, this was a pamphlet that was printed by the Hampshire County Arts Council. This is of local significance, but I can remove this, too. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing about retrieval dates in bibliography.
  • Maxwell/Swisher, Munske/Kerns Pitts/Harding: Suggest adding "lastauthoramp = yes" parameter.
  • William and Mary Quarterly: This is the journal, not the author, no? If so, it should be listed without an author, or with author listed as "Anon."/"Anonymous". Also, you don't need the "– via JSTOR", and to follow above convention should have pages listed as "222–6."
  • For journals like the William and Mary Quarterly, the journal is usually listed as the author, too. I can change this to something else, but I didn't want to say anonymous since someone or multiple people from the staff of William and Mary Quarterly researched and wrote this article. Let me know if there is any other wording that you think may be appropriate, and I can amend as necessary. I've changed the page number to the above format. (Thank you for the catch!) -- West Virginian (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. You still don't need the "– via JSTOR" though. Anyone who clicks on the "JSTOR 1915885" link will have a pretty good idea where the article is. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):

Sources appear reliable

c (OR):

What's the source for David Renick Parker and Jill Fleagle Parker currently owning and living in the house?

  • I've removed this from the article until I can find a source to confirm it. While I know the family, I'll wait until I have a verifiable reference. Thank you for the catch! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

No apparent copyvios

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects):

Article covers major aspects

b (focused):

Article is focused

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy Article is neutral

5. It is stable Article is stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

Images are appropriately licensed.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Images (other than the one in the infobox) need alt text.

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail: Looks great, West Virginian. Comments are above; they're almost exclusively minor, and you should feel free to disregard stylistic points. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usernameunique, thank you tremendously for engaging in this very thorough and thoughtful GA review! I am currently on holiday, and will address each of your concerns as soon as I can. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! — West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usernameunique, I've returned to Wikipedia after a long vacation and I'm currently reviewing your comments and Corinne's comments and edits. Thank you for your patience! And Corinne, thank you for taking notice of my absence, and for stepping in and taking the time to address Usernameunique's comments. I appreciate you both more than you know! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usernameunique, I've finished going through your comments and I've addressed anything outstanding that hadn't already been addressed by Corinne. Please let me know if I've missed any outstanding issues, and I'll correct/incorporate immediately! And Corinne, thank you so much again for your very thorough addressing of these issues, and for making the corrections throughout the article! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, West Virginian. I realize the overlapping comments by Corinne and me make it a bit confusing, but there are still a number of comments that are either unaddressed, or that Corinne simply agreed to without implementing. I would therefore take another look through them, keeping in mind that they are mostly just suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usernameunique, I apologize for my oversight. I've gone back through your list of suggestions, and I've addressed those that hadn't already been addressed. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions or questions for me in the meantime! Thank you again for your attention to this review! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usernameunique, I made some further tweaks to the article, so please let me know if you see anything else outstanding. I truly appreciate you taking the time to review this article and provide your guidance for its improvement! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usernameunique, I just wanted to take this opportunity to check in and see if I sufficiently addressed each of your comments, concerns, and suggestions above. Thank you again for engaging in this review! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, West Virginian. I'll finish up today or tomorrow; would do it now, but apparently the network my computer is connected to at the moment is blocked from editing. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • West Virginian, looks great! The only thing between this article and passing is adding alt text to the three non-lead images. I know this is more of a FA thing than a GA thing, but it would be nice to complete the article in that way, and if you take this to FA—which I think you should (ping me if you do)—it will already be done. I've also put five other suggestions below, but passing is not contingent on your implementing any of them.
  • Usernameunique, I've added alt text to the remaining images. Please let me know if you see anything else that is outstanding! Once again, thank you for this review and for making this article better with each suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All set, West Virginian, passing now. Great job with the article! As I said, let me know if you take this to FAC. Made one small change to the article; see edit history for explanation, revert if you don't like. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further suggestions[edit]

  • Only the citations for the NRHP reference # is necessary in the infobox.
  • Usernameunique, I removed the other inline citations from the infobox, and left the citation by the year it was listed since that also comes from that source. Let me know if this works! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a semicolon instead of a period here: "stage line. The journey included"
  • "(built c. 1790)" is unnecessary and could be deleted, since it is included two paragraphs above.
  • "Richard Sloan's son, Major General John Sloan" could still technically mean two people, i.e., Richard Sloan's son and MG John Sloan. If you remove the comma it can only mean one person, which is correct.
  • "– via JSTOR" is still not needed for the article in the William and Mary Quarterly. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usernameunique, I've removed JSTOR from this reference. -- 03:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sloan–Parker_House/GA1&oldid=827530685"