Wikipedia:Peer review/Cottage Home Historic District/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cottage Home Historic District[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it reviewed as a featured article eventually. However, this is only the second article I've ever written, so I'd really appreciate input from more experienced editors before I try to send it through the featured article gauntlet.

Thanks, PhantomPlugger (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone through and did a little copy edit of the article. Overall, I'm very impressed, especially since this is only your second article. A few explanations of why I did what I did, and what I think you can do to make the article a bit better:
Good copyedits, thanks! PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I did
I noticed that, but didn't know how to fix it. Thanks for that tip! PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You had originally written, "Cottage Home comprises the National Register Area and a larger..." First off, Cottage Home doesn't comprise the NRHP district and larger state districts but rather is comprised of the two. Also, the average reader doesn't know what the "National Register" is without a little bit of a description, so it's usually desired to at least include the full name of the register, i.e. "National Register of Historic Places", before using the shortened form "National Register." I've edited the lead to rearrange this sentence, which I believe takes care of the issue, but if you disagree, this is a very minor issue, so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on it.
Your rewrite is clearer and smoother. PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another quick tip: Districts and buildings are listed on the NRHP and not designated to it. Again, a very minor issue.
Thanks! PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though it may just be personal preference, sentences that include "with ____" are usually very awkward to read. Examples you had were, "After annexation, Cottage Home experienced strong growth in housing with almost 400 households living there by 1900, nearly three-quarters of which rented a house or apartment," which I changed to, "After annexation, Cottage Home experienced strong growth in housing. Almost 400 households were located in the area by 1900, nearly three-quarters of which were being rented." There was another example of this type of sentence structure which I changed later on in the article as well.
Those are good changes. I'm not used to writing in an encyclopedia style, so I'm sure there are other tweaks that could be made. PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I think you could do
  • You mention throughout the article that the National Register district is smaller than the state and local district, but you never really quantify that statement to my knowledge. You do include that the NRHP district includes 23 structures while the state/local one includes 292, but I think describing the size difference in terms of areas would be helpful to include in the prose. The infobox says that the district is 77.6 acres large, which is the area of the locally-designated conservation area (I presume.. it isn't cited to anything). According to the NRIS database, the area of the NRHP district is just 2 acres. It could be helpful to include both the area of the NRHP district and the local district in the infobox. This could be done with a <br /> tag in the infobox code, i.e. |area={{convert|2|acre}} (NRHP district)<br />{{convert|77.6|acre}} (local district).
Here's where it gets a little hairier. 77.6 acres would technically be the area of the state boundaries, as I calculated via this tool. Since the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store aren't actually included in the local district, that area would be slightly smaller. Then, the national district is of course another size. So, for the sake of simplicity, I included the largest bounds. Where are you getting the NRHP acreage? From my reading of the boundaries, it would be more like 5-6 acres. On a related note, I can't find a hard reference to the areas, I'm inferring them from the boundaries. Is that an issue? If so, what is the fix? PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think that tool you used to calculate areas to be a reliable source, so I wouldn't include that number in the article. I got the NRHP district acreage from the NRIS database, downloadable here as an entire database. Usually this database is not used but is rather accessed through a tool put online by User:Elkman at this website. You can type in either the name of the district or the reference number (90000328), and the website will generate a Wikipedia-ready infobox full of all the information provided by the NRHP. Another way to find the area is to find the actual document submitted to the NRHP when the district was nominated. That file will eventually be available at the following url: "National Register of Historic Places Nomination: 90000328" (PDF).

, but as can be seen from clicking that, the "document has not yet been digitized". You can request a hard copy from the NRHP using instructions at WP:NRHPHELP#NRHP forms, and that will usually arrive within two or so weeks. That document will include not only the area of the district but also probably maps, pictures, and an extended description of the history/significance of the district.

As to a hard reference of the area of the state/local district, your Reference #2 says "...the approximately seventy-six acre farmland site now known as the Cottage Home neighborhood." Using that, you could put |area=approx. {{convert|76|acre}}. You may also be able to contact the IHPC and see if they have acreage of their districts in a database somewhere. If you can't find anything better than the approximate acreage, that's fine; just leave it out. One thing I would avoid, though, is that tool you used, since it is not a reliable source and is original research IMO.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a copy of the nominating documents, so whenever I get those, I'll add any new information or references I find. PhantomPlugger (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a decent map in the Conservation Area Plan (ref #2) that shows the boundaries of the district, location of the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store, and the locations of the historic curbs and sidewalks. It's not public domain, but I know people at the IHPC, so I may be able to get permission to use it. What would you suggest? PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get permission to use that map, by all means go ahead. As I said above, there's probably a map of the NRHP district in the NRHP nomination form. Getting all of them together and combining them into your own map would be the best option in my opinion because you could show all of them at once.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there doesn't appear to be a map anywhere with all the boundaries, I think the best solution is to make a map. Can you show me how to do it? PhantomPlugger (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Every map I've made has been a combination of a base map generated by a OpenStreetMap (all maps are released under a Creative Commons license unlike Google or Bing Maps) and some manual editing in an image editor such as PhotoShop, Paint, etc. To make the map I linked to above, I looked at this pdf and basically re-drew the district boundaries manually onto my base map. For this map, I simply transposed the highway shields onto the base map. There are undoubtedly many more high-tech ways to do this, but I think the results I get are pretty good. You're more than welcome to try to find someone who uses a more advanced procedure.
To generate a base map from OpenStreetMap, click the "Export" tab at the top and then zoom to the region you want to include in the map. I think this is a good angle, but feel free to zoom in or out to your liking. I usually try to include at least a little of the surrounding area for context. After the area is selected, make sure "Mapnik Image" is selected from the selectboxes, and select an image format. I usually use PNG because I don't have software on my computer to handle SVGs, but if you have that software, SVGs are preferable to PNGs; I don't know how to manually edit them, though, so if you go that route, you're on your own. You'll then see a box labelled "Scale 1:___". The lower the number in the text box is, the more detailed and larger the file size is. It will show you an image size right under that box. You may have to export the image a few times with different numbers to figure out which scale works best. Save the file on your computer and open it with an image processing app.
You can then use the map in the Conservation Area Plan to copy the boundaries of the local district and location of the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store. When you get the NRHP document(s), you can use the map that is hopefully included to copy the NRHP boundaries. If you need further help, let me know!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a map and added it to the article. PhantomPlugger (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, although the caption is a bit long, and the positioning isn't the greatest. As the article is expanded, it may start to look better, so I wouldn't worry about it right now. One alternative is to use the |district_map= parameter of the NRHP infobox to show the district map instead of the state map there. I personally like to have both in the article, but if you want to move the new map into the infobox, it's possible. Just out of curiousity, did you receive the NRHP documents yet for those boundaries? I didn't see any other added information, which is surprising. Usually NRHP documents are full of useful information.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't received the documents yet. I used the boundary description from the Conservation Plan. The positioning of the map was the best I could come up with and I couldn't think of a better alternative to the caption. PhantomPlugger (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state that the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store were designated locally before the state and local designation of the district. One piece of information missing is when this happened.
I know, and it's so frustrating because none of my sources mention the year. I know the information exists, it's just not in the sources published online. I don't live in Indy anymore, so I don't have access to offline sources I used to. The best solution I can think of is to email the IHPC for the information, then reference the offline file. A plan for the buildings exists, it's just not online. PhantomPlugger (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe contact the local organization that handles designations like this one? It may be possible for them to mail you a hard copy like the NRHP does. Not sure if that would cost anything or not, but it's worth a try.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention several times throughout the article that the establishment of the Cottage Home Neighborhood Association "stabilized" the district. While I understand that to mean that people stopped moving away at such a rapid rate, I don't really like the choice of wording. The district wasn't unstable before, so it shouldn't need to be stabilized. Maybe just explicitly state that the exodus from the area and rate of demolitions slowed after 1984? Your most-used reference, the Cottage Home Conservation Area Plan, says that there was a restoration boom in the mid 1980s and that the CHNA was a product of that restoration boom–not that the CHNA caused the boom (though it obviously acted as a catalyst).
I don't entirely agree with this point, but I made a couple tweaks that I think will satisfy us both. PhantomPlugger (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead of the article, as well as later on, you say that the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store "anchor" the NRHP district. Then later on, you claim that the Vonnegut & Bohn Doubles anchor the district as well. Which is it? Or is it both? Is this in a source somewhere? This needs to be explained in more detail.
I guess I just viewed the use of "anchor" as a stylistic choice, because the Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House and Store is clearly the most significant part of the district and provided the impetus for creating the district. Does anchor have an additional meaning that I'm not understanding? It is unclear that I use that word in the section on the Doubles, so I'll fix that. PhantomPlugger (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I use the word "anchor" to refer to the most important structure or site in a district. Maybe the word pivotal would work better here? I'm also fine with your recent edit that changed the wording a bit.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I didn't thoroughly check the references you cite, I did look over a few. Participants in the GA and FA processes will scrutinize these much more, so I would make sure that everything you cite in the article (like the CHNA claim above) is explicitly cited to some reference. Anything in the realm of original research or synthesis won't pass those processes.
I tried to be careful not to do any original research or synthesis in the article. It was kind of hard at some places because I have a lot of informal information on the topic, but I think I have a reference for everything. The only sources I'm unsure about are the ones from the Cottage Home Neighborhood Association. I consider them to be reliable sources, because I know who the author of the CHNA history sections is. Her credentials are not evident, however, in the source web pages. Is that going to be a problem? PhantomPlugger (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that history section from the CHNA will be fine; I've used references like that many times before, and no one has ever said anything about it, even in the higher-level processes. One thing I did notice, however, was your use of File:Ruskaup-Ratcliffe House Old.jpg. You say the source is http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagephoto/411765282/sizes/s/in/set-933600/ on the image page, but, visiting the page, I see that "Heritage Photo" has labelled that image All Rights Reserved. That would mean that the inclusion of this image on Wikipedia is a violation of copyright. I won't tag it for now, but you should see if you can get a free version of this picture. One way to go about that is to contact the uploader and see if he/she will change the copyright status of the file. For more information about uploading photos from Flickr, see this page on Commons.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the pictures' author for permission to use that image and the main image in this article. I believe I marked them as such when I uploaded them. Is there something further I need to do? PhantomPlugger (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either get the author to update the copyright information displayed on the Flickr page linked as the source of the file to show an acceptable license, or make use of the WP:OTRS process, where you can get email confirmation of the photographer's permission sent to Wikipedia. For an example of a Flickr-uploaded image, click here (note the use of the Flickr template in the licensing section), and for an example of an OTRS-uploaded image, click here (again, note the use of the licensing template).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think this article is pretty good, and I was forced to find very minor flaws with it. If you'd like help fixing any of the things I mentioned above, drop a note at my talk page. Keep up the good work!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I will respond inline. PhantomPlugger (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cottage_Home_Historic_District/archive1&oldid=758506804"