Talk:Henderson Hall Historic District/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. This looks like a big one - sorry you've been waiting a while! Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , this passes GA - congrats to you and anyone else who worked on the article. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" ! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute !           | Review Comment
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 1. :


 * I've gone through and made some prose tweaks, since it's easier than laying them all out as tasks for you. Let me know if there are any you dislike.
 * The only other prose issue is the 21/29 room discrepancy. The sources are definitely in disagreement, and I assume the difference lays in what is counted as part of "Henderson Hall." Can we come up with any reason to pick one number over another? I don't like the idea of leaving it ambiguous, such as it is at present. If the discrepancy can't be resolved, I would recommend we just leave out the number of rooms in the article.
 * I can't really reconcile these two, so I've just removed the room count. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - pass on prose.


 * Pass, no issues here.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 2. :


 * No uncited passages or information that I can find.
 * Given the importance of the Collins source to the article, let's archive it (archive.org) and add the link to the citation under 'Sources.' Otherwise I fear linkrot will eat this one up within a few years. Would be good to do the same for the Kenny, Oxford Pres, and White sources too, but less important as those are to more stable links.
 * I've archived Collins. I don't think we usually archive Google books or Hathitrust links


 * Pass - sources appear sufficiently reliable.


 * Appears free of OR.


 * Some of the phrasing, especially in "History", comes uncomfortably close to the Collins source. "consolidated land claims", etc. Take another read through and see if you can adjust the text so it paraphrases the Collins source, not just rewriting sentences in a different way. It would also help if information from other sources was integrated throughout the section (Pohick), breaking up the Collins-sourced material.
 * I've gone through and done some rephrasing. I've also moved the Pohick material into the main history section
 * "Got the site listed" seems too close to "Got the plantation listed" - rephrase. Would also be good to give some context for what it takes to list a site, since the current phrasing almost implies you can do it on your own without input from the NPS.
 * Rephrased


 * Issues addressed - pass.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 3. :


 * Based on sources and a quick search on Google and JSTOR, appears comprehensive.


 * Pass, no issues here.


 * Pass, no neutrality issues found.


 * Pass, no issues here.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 6. :


 * Pass, all look good.


 * The two images we have are fine - do we have any others of any other buildings in the District?
 * Unfortunately, I haven't come across any free-use images other than what is in the article
 * Fair enough, pass on images.