Talk:Newlin Mill Complex

WikiProject NRHP assessment
It's been suggested that this article be upranked from C to B by the WikiProject NRHP standards. According to these, a B article "could be improved to GA-quality without too much additional work". I'm therefore trying to read it as I'd review a GA candidate (though I'm not checking out references or verifying the licensing of images, as I'd do in an actual GA review). I'm working with this version.

I think it's reached B level by the WikiProject standards. The biggest weakness that I can find has to do with the various Newlins and Trimbles, whose relationships aren't always clear.

In the "History" section, third paragraph, we're told that Nathaniel Newlin's grandson Nathaniel III built a house for the head miller; but I don't find Nathaniel III in the table of owners, raising the question of why he'd improve property that he didn't own. The next sentence tells us that "Nathaniel's son Nicholas" built a house; it's not clear whether he's the son of Nathaniel I or Nathaniel III, nor whether he's the Nicholas listed in the table as the 1729–68 owner of the mill.

In the fifth paragraph of the section, we're told that Thomas Newlin remarried; but we're not told who Thomas was. The table suggests that he was the son of second-owner Nicholas; if so, the text should say so. The table also says that Benjamin, apparently Thomas's son, owned the mill for about six years after his father's death before selling it. The relationship between these Newlins should be stated explicitly in the text, and it'd be good to know whether Benjamin was the offspring of the first or second of Thomas's wives.

In that fifth paragraph, we're also told that the mill was sold to William Trimble Jr., presumably the son of the William and Anne Trimble who're mentioned in the third paragraph. It would be good if the relationship were stated explicitly. I'd be inclined to move the information on Wm. and Anne down to the fifth paragraph, and put their 1742 house in past participle: otherwise, their appearance in a single sentence in the third paragraph seems like a digression.

The references should probably be re-checked: citation 4 appears to have been changed, so it no longer supports the statements for which it's cited. Archived version? — Ammodramus (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

— Ammodramus (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)