Talk:Stewart's Castle/GA1

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 20:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This looks good and I'm sorry you've had to wait so long. Will begin the review tomorrow and aim to conclude over the weekend. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  APK  whisper in my ear  01:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow. KJP1 (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Main review
1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * It is well written. A few suggestions regarding the prose.
 * Lede
 * "The house owed its nickname to ..." - This confused me a little. I'm assuming its nickname is "Stewart's Folly"? But its two other names are presumably due to its builder and its castellated appearance? Perhaps something like, "The house owed its various names to …"?
 * "Designed by noted architect Adolf Cluss" - Is the false title necessary?
 * "with plans to build a new residence. The plans ..." - To avoid the double "plans", perhaps a rewording such as, "with the intention of building a new residence. The plans …"
 * ✅ I added "noted" because Cluss is known for designing several landmarks in the city, but I've removed it.  APK  whisper in my ear  02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * History - Development and construction
 * "Up until the 1860s,..." - Is the "Up" necessary?
 * "and selected noted architect Adolf Cluss (1825-1905) to design it" - See above.
 * "The first consignment of furnishings were lost at sea and an almost identical order was placed, which arrived safely to the city" - I think consignment is singular and to the city seems redundant, thus, "The first consignment of furnishings was lost at sea and an almost identical order was placed, which arrived safely."
 * ✅  APK  whisper in my ear  02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * History - Residence
 * "Most people agreed it was a beautiful mansion" - All very subjective but is "beautiful" quite the right word? If it's actually used in the sources, then use it, of course. Otherwise, something like "imposing" or "impressive"?
 * "its location was considered far from desirable areas of the city" - Is "considered" necessary?
 * ✅  APK  whisper in my ear  02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * History - Restoration and final years
 * "The company built an automobile showroom on a portion of the lot. In 1922, Riggs Bank (now PNC Financial Services) purchased the lot and built a branch next to the showroom. The showroom was purchased by Riggs Bank and the two buildings were incorporated in 1923." - This got me confused. SMC buys the, whole?, lot in 1921 and builds a showroom on it. In 1922, Riggs buys what? The part of the lot that doesn't have the showroom on it? And then in 1923 Riggs buys the other part of the lot, with the showroom, and incorporates this into the bank? Can't really make a suggestion as I'm not getting the chronology.
 * Let me see if I can reword this for clarity. I need to reread that section of the book - which is hiding somewhere in my apartment.  APK  whisper in my ear  02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it a bit. Let me know if the timeline is clearer.  APK  whisper in my ear  04:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * b (MoS):
 * This looks fine.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references)
 * Just at the moment, the ref.s are causing a problem. When I click on any of the Chronicling America links, I get a "Server too busy" message. Hopefully this is temporary.
 * References are properly formatted and comprehensive.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * The sources look fine but I'll need to check them as per above.
 * And now that I can acces them, I've done a sample and they're all fine.
 * c (OR):
 * No indication of OR.
 * d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):
 * 2% on Earwig so that's fine.

3. It is broad in its scope
 * a (major aspects)
 * Two thoughts. First, I wonder if a little more description of the building might be useful to readers. You cover it briefly in "History - Residence" but a bit about the architectural style? What on earth would you call it? Second Empire? Your, oddly-named, Queen Anne? A mention of the, very striking, mansard roofs? Given that it is essentially an architecture article, I think a little more on the style of the building would be good. Secondly, although the mansion was demolished in 1901, you rightly have a concluding paragraph to "close" the story. But it takes us only to 1990. For completeness, is there nothing that could then bridge the nearly 30-year period until today? What stands there now? A Google Earth search seems to show the bank in your photo still there in July 2017. A single sentence along the lines of "As of 2018, the bank continues operation in the original 1920s building"? Although this,, suggests they have sold the freehold.
 * I updated the recent history. Let me see if I can find an article describing the building and interior.  APK  whisper in my ear  02:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * The article stays focussed on the subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy
 * The article's written from a Neutral point of view.

5. It is stable
 * It's stable without any edit-warring.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * The images all appear to be appropriately Tagged.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions)
 * It's well-illustrated and captioned.

7. Overall:
 * It's a well-researched, well-written article on an interesting building. I'll have to leave it on hold for now as I can't access the online sources. As soon as I can, I'll wrap up. The suggestions are mainly just that, suggestions for consideration. If you want to discuss anything, just drop me a line here. . KJP1 (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking it over. I'll respond to everything this evening when I get a chance. I don't know what's wrong with the newspaper archive links. The main site seems to be working.  APK  whisper in my ear  20:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. It's still not letting me access any of the Chronicling America sites. I'm wondering if it's a UK/US issue, perhaps linked to GDPR. Whatever, they're still not working. Can I get to them through your main site link which is? You're going to hate my other suggestion, which is that you send/post a sample as PDFs to enable me to do a check. I'm sure they're fine, of course, but somehow I need to see a few! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me see what I can do about the samples. I'm going to give it a day or so in hopes the site starts working again.  APK  whisper in my ear  02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You mentioned on my talk page that you're having issues accessing the Washington Post links. These are not working for you? 1, 2) I didn't think those were subscription links.  APK  whisper in my ear  02:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The LoC links are working for me again. Are you having issues?  APK  whisper in my ear  20:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And for me! I can't pick it up tonight/tomorrow morning, but will get back to it later tomorrow. Fingers crossed they're still ok. KJP1 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome, no rush.  APK  whisper in my ear  20:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the WP pages give me this with no option to browse. KJP1 (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried WebCite and it didn't seem to work. I'll try something else when I get a chance.  APK  whisper in my ear  21:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry that took a little longer than planned! Have now checked a sample of the online sources and they're, almost, all fine. Source 12 gives me a 404 error, but that's not critical for GA, although it'd be a problem at FAC. So, all good to go. Many congrat.s KJP1 (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll still look for an article describing the architecture/interior, so when I get a free day I'll try to add that. Thanks for taking the time to do the review.  APK  whisper in my ear  19:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)