Talk:Marcus DeWitt Carlock House

Stub rating
Very curious why the article is rated a stub. FortGuy has rated the article a stub and I am curious if he can point me to a guideline that shows this article should be rated as a stub as a NRHP article. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no guideline, unfortunately, but judgement is merely subjective. Unlike some projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads which have a very narrow and specific scope that allows for more objective and deterministic assessment rules, WP:NRHD covers tens of thousands of articles including many not yet created over broad and diverse subjects. NRHP sites can include upscale homes and offices buildings still in use, graffiti-covered abandoned factories and warehouses threatened with demolition, distinctive landmarks such as lighthouses, pioneer forts, or county courthouses, and archaeological sites in undisclosed locations to preserve the heritage of native peoples who lived hundreds of years before. As such, it is impossible to create a boilerplate guideline to determine assessment for any single new article. Please keep in mind that many historic places also overlap within the purview of other Wikipedia projects with their own guidelines as to what information should be included within the article or how they should be structured.


 * My reasoning for the stub assessment is that the article is incomplete, contains unclear or misleading information, and is presented within a disjointed structure all giving the appearance of an article that, while somewhat substantive for a stub, is only in its most rudimentary stage of formation. As an example, the article's initial heading "Architecture & Construction" does not mention an architect or construction date. This same heading includes the unitary subheading "Interior" which begs for at least one more subheading about the exterior. Headings and subheadings should never be unitary; there should always be at least two at each level within the article's hierarchical outline. Worse, the "Interior" subheading contains a mere single sentence which hardly merits distinction from the text of the overall section.


 * The second heading "History of the Home" (Home shouldn't be capitalized per the Manual of Style) finally mentions the year the house was built. It then goes on to mention the architect is unknown (Did the house even have an architect separate from the owner and the contractor?) but fails to mention the obviously very competent contractor or the owner's involvement in the selection of building materials. The article then goes on to mention the total size of the property and describe another building on the property without mentioning that the building and adjacent land are outside of the NRHP designation due to recent, profound alterations inconsistent with historical use. The Texas Historical Commission's page about the house is similarly uninterested in any structures outside the main house in their RTHL description page.


 * Imagine yourself guiding a blind person by hand approaching, walking around, and touring the house. You would describe the details of the exterior while also remarking on the landscaping and views of the distant physical environment within which the house sits. Then take them into the front entrance, describing how the entrance was designed to welcome you and your blind friend, and then guiding her/him room by room throughout the house. Describe every detail built into the house for its historic value and esthetic appearance, but disregard the furniture however historically accurate and tasteful it may be. The National Register doesn't give a damn about furniture, and your blind friend probably has issues with the placement of furniture in locations in which s/he can't control anyhow. If the home has carbide gas lamps from the days preceding electric utilities, point them out. If the home was altered to include a telephone desk in the foyer still remaining from the days when everyone had just one land line, point that out. If the kitchen retains its original wood-burning stove while being equipped with modern appliances, point that out, too.


 * My recommendations are, first, to establish a more coherent outline structure. I suggest replacing headings with "Description" describing the present state and appearance of the property, and "History" describing the property's initial appearance at the time of construction and followed with a timeline of any alterations since then. This section would also include a biographies of the owners within the context of the property. Subheadings should only be done if the sections are sufficiently long. Second, you've already referenced the NRHP registration form, which means you have substantial info to expand what you have already provided much further. The registration form even includes a good 1903 photo of the house old enough to upload to Commons under public domain. You could put that as a thumbnail in the history section. If you do that, create a new Commons category specific to the house containing all images of the house to which you can link in an "External links" section. Best of all, look at the NRHP project's FA, A, GA, and B articles for examples of what has been proven to work.


 * In the future when creating NRHP articles, this infobox generator is very handy albeit not for this historic place because its designation was too recent. Although the NPS website is terrible at providing Texas NRHP nomination forms, the Texas Historic Sites Atlas fills in some of the slack. When you find a particular NRHP site, see if there is a "Files" tab at the top of the listing for a PDF download. The Univ. of North Texas Libraries maintains the Portal to Texas History which holds RTHL nomination forms for some counties. Unfortunately, Wood County is not included. Fortguy (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)