Talk:Ashlawn/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 01:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all for now. Putting this on hold for a fortnight so I can sleep on it. It's a nice article on a rather obscure farmhouse (but still notable). 23W (talk · [ stalk] ) 01:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the article a bit in my sandbox to give page numbers to the Zimmerman citation. If you want, you can implement it; I think it would help readers identify information in the Zimmerman ref through its shoddy OCR processing. You can see it (and copy and paste from it) here: link.
 * In the sandbox, I've also given it a book citation (ISBN 0403088887), just as another source to have.
 * I've given it a copy edit and split the lead in two. I've also given a direct quote by Zimmerman an citation immediately after, per WP:MINREF.
 * Speaking of which, is there no way we can refer to Zimmerman by name in the body? Seems a bit of a mouthful to repeat "the National Register of Historic Places".
 * Pinging . 23W (talk · [ stalk] ) 04:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think referring to Zimmerman by name would work, I've always been concerned with the authorial credit to the NRHP because of numerous consultants and reviewers who polish up submitted text into proper form, but did not write the original text themselves. It came up previously, so I been reliant on the document (instead of worrying about credit) to a fault. While all NRHP properties are notable, the information on them is often sparse at best and given local or state prominence. Many of these homes are part of the cultural heritage and can occasionally be found in early architecture or other research efforts by scholars - one such house was destroyed, but it was the subject of a study by Kelly for his book. Since it is a private home, the ability to get in depth with the house is usually non-existent (also for a RS that is not "original research" for that matter). Before most houses are significantly altered, destroyed or renovated, a survey and detailed look into the construction is helpful for preserving the details and history surrounding a property. My local historical society has nothing on my home and due to the fire, next to nothing but some property records on another home I am working on - but such structures are important relics of an era with ingenuity and some superior building techniques! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for all this wait. I'll try to get back to reviewing in the week. :( 23W (talk · [ stalk] · pend) 02:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, sorry for the abysmal wait. I've went ahead and made a major bold edit—hopefully not too drastic to disqualify my review. I've added two sources, including the book ref I mentioned above, to give it some extra coverage. I've also turned some obscure architectural terms given in the construction section into wikilinks, and given page numbers to the Zimmerman refs using (rp). In addition, I've given the article a major copy edit, and turned some sentences into explanatory footnotes for being too tangential.
 * I'm confident that these changes are for the better, but if you have any disagreements or would like to have a second opinion, you may do so. I'll put this on hold for another week. 23W (talk · [ stalk] · pend) 21:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it over tonight. Gotta run out the door now. Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed a few things, for the chimney and making clear that Perkins was in the Connecticut legislature. Thank you for the copy edit and I do like the using the ref notes, but that is a new style for me! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I wouldn't want to enforce any sort of ref style over another, but I think they would be highly beneficial to readers. I've read it again and think it now passes. Nice work. 23W (talk · [ stalk] · pend) 22:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)