Talk:Charles Payne House/GA1

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

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 05:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Not much to say at the moment. There's not a lot in the way of sources, unfortunately, but as with Talk:Potter-Collyer House/GA1 it shouldn't be a problem. Some comments: On hold for 14 days. 23W 06:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * "Built in 1855–1856": "1855–1856" can be abbreviated as "1855–56", though I'm not sure what this means? Was it built from 1855 until the next year, or was it built in 1855 or 1856 (exact date unknown)?
 * "By 2013, the picket fence and entrance gate had been removed, but the property still retains the street frontage for its garden": source?
 * The second bullet point introduces an unusual aspect for me. The image you see on the article is actually self-evident that the fence and gate has been removed, but it is not a reported event because it was done by private hands and garners no attention in press. At the same time, the NRHP nomination and images clearly show the fence and gate - it is part of the nomination and the description after all. So I feel it is apt to mention that it does not exist anymore, but I do not want to cite a picture or a Google streetview. The problem is one that comes up from time to time - some NRHP structures have been gone for over a decade yet are still listed and their removal or alterations do not typically get great information. The formal process requires basically gathering information and submitting sources to the state historical body which submits it to the NRHP. The NRHP evaluates (usually with photos or newspaper sources) and determines to keep or delist the property.


 * This is actually occurring as I write this at Norwich State Hospital, but this huge complex gets attention because it has been in constant battles for decades. I really need to get some pictures of the Kettle Building being demolished for the article - it still stands because demolition has taken 3 months now. Though it might be 2016 before the other buildings are demolished.... who knows if I'll get to it in time. Such a beautiful structure with strong features... but I digress.... The I'll follow your suggestion because I am not used to such situations. The Samuel Miner House is one which will probably evolve based on your decision here - since it still exists on the register a full decade after its destruction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Though you say you don't want to cite an image, I think if you did, and cf.ed it (e.g.: Angled view of Charles Payne House. 2013. Compare with "National Register of Historic Places – Charles Payne House – Photos".) it could work out. That or you could add a footnote stating to refer to the infobox image. Whatever works for you, but I'd say one is better than none in this case. 23W 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - I like that! So I used it! That is a good way of providing a citation that does not require any original research and is a simple comparison that is verifiable to even the layman. It meets WP:V now. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Everything else seems to be in check (made one more edit: changed the slash into a dash per MOS:SLASH), so I'll pass this. 23W 23:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)