Talk:Wappocomo (Romney, West Virginia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 20:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I plan to review this in the next few days. This is my first GAN review. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rosiestep, thank you so incredibly much for selecting Wappocomo for Good Article review! Please let me know as you have questions or concerns and I'll address them accordingly in a timely manner! -- Caponer (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks great, the only thing I saw were date ranges that could be WP:DATE compliant within the same century..example 1819-23, as opposed to 1819 - 1823..Coal town guy (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for the catch! -- Caponer (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting the review this morning. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for conducting this review Rosiestep! As you can see, I'm making progress through the below listed suggestions. I will act on and/or respond to each of these as soon as I can! -- Caponer (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people are mentioned in this article in the form of parenthetical elements. Some examples where the commas are missing:
 * Use commas to set off parenthetical elements
 * "Casey's father Peter Casey (1715–1787) acquired the Wappocomo property..."
 * "James Gregg Parsons' father Isaac Parsons (1752–1796) represented..."
 * "On November 7, 1874, Col. Isaac Parsons' widow Susan Blue Parsons conveyed..."
 * "In 1972, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad's South Branch line located on the Wappocomo property became part of the Chessie System."
 * Thank you for this suggestion! I've added in the necessary commas. Please let me know if I've missed any! -- Caponer (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Col. Isaac Parsons: After the first mention, refer to "Col. Isaac Parsons" as "Col. Parsons"
 * The article has two main sections: History and Architecture. The history of the property is summarized in the lead, but the architecture summary is missing.
 * I've corrected the mentions of Col. Parsons throughout, and I've added an architecture summary to the lead. -- Caponer (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Background and construction
 * Acres, ha, sq mi: remove overlink in this section and in Parsons family acquisition
 * Verbs: "The bricks utilized in the construction of Casey's mansion had been manufactured in England..." vs. The bricks used in the construction of Casey's mansion were manufactured in England...
 * Is there any more information about Nicholas Casey, the person who built the mansion?
 * Is there any info on constructions costs?
 * I've taken care of the over linking in this section and in Parsons family acquisition, and I've added information on Nicholas Casey to the introduction and to the article's prose. I'm afraid I cannot find any addition information on the cost of construction and labor. Please let me know if this works! Thanks again for the suggestions! -- Caponer (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Parsons family acquisition
 * "The Parsons family was a prominent family": can you reword to avoid family/family so close together?  Perhaps something like: The Parsons were a prominent family?
 * Done! --Caponer (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When did James Gregg Parsons own Wappocomo? "James Gregg Parsons and his wife Catherine inherited Wappocomo from her father, and they raised their 12 children there." vs. "Following his wife's death, Parsons acquired the Wappocomo plantation."
 * Parsons and his wife inherited the property together, and following the death of his wife, he became sole owner of the property. I've changed the prose to reflect this. -- Caponer (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When did Col. Parsons own Wappocomo: "After his death on January 25, 1847, his will, dated November 7, 1846 and probated February 22, 1847, devised Lot Number 21 including Wappocomo (referred to in the will as the "Casey tract") to his son Colonel Isaac Parsons (1814–1862)" vs. "Col. Parsons eventually acquired Wappocomo outright."
 * I've removed the sentence about Parsons acquiring Wappocomo outright, since it was his outright at the reading of the will. -- Caponer (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that these sentences ("James "Big Jim" Parsons, Jr. (1798–1858) inherited the "Collins tract" (Lot Number 20), which later became Valley View, and his son David C. Parsons (1803–1860) inherited Lot Number 13. James Gregg Parsons' sons also inherited the nearby "Jake Sugar Rum tract, the McGuire tract, and five town lots in Romney."") are necessary. If you believe they are, can you move them to the end of the paragraph as they currently break up the information regarding Col. Parsons.
 * I do feel these sentences are necessary because it documents the division of Parsons family properties, and introduces the ancestry for James Parsons III, as his father was Col. Parsons' brother. It also connects Valley View with Wappocomo, as they were neighboring Parsons family plantations. I've moved them to the end of the paragraph--does this work? Thanks again for the suggestion! -- Caponer (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jacob Green affair
 * In this sentence, "James Parsons III intercepted Green at Hollidaysburg, but local abolitionists thwarted his attempt to capture Green, and he was arrested and arraigned for kidnapping" clarify that James Parsons III was arrested as "he was arrested" in this instance would mean that Green was arrested.
 * wl American Civil War
 * I've changed the sentence to read as the following: "James Parsons III intercepted Green at Hollidaysburg, but local abolitionists thwarted his attempt to capture Green, and Parsons was arrested and arraigned for kidnapping." -- Caponer (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Social events
 * From the image caption, I figured out that the ballroom was part of the stone addition, but this isn't so apparent in the section's first sentence. Can you clarify? Any info on the cost?
 * The current sentence reads as "Following its construction by Col. Parsons in 1861, the ballroom in the upper story of Wappocomo's stone addition served as the scene of many events and parties." Do you have any suggestions as to what additional information this sentence requires? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find information regarding the cost of the addition. -- Caponer (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "According to tradition, as many as 100 couples have danced on the ballroom's wooden floor": 100 couple at one event vs. 100 couples since 1861?
 * I've changed the sentence to read: "According to tradition, as many as 100 couples have danced on the ballroom's wooden floor since its construction in 1861." -- Caponer (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * American Civil War
 * Regarding the 1-sentence paragraph, can the sentence be incorporated elsewhere?
 * I attached this to the first paragraph but I will continue to play with alternatives in the meantime. Thanks for the suggestion! -- Caponer (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Post-war ownership
 * "Part of Wappocomo's original land tract, located near the city limits of Romney, was sold for residential building lots and for the Fruit Growers Storage facility..." - any mention in the refs as to when it was sold?
 * Unfortunately there is not, but I would assume it was in the 1920s/1930s during an era of growth in the orchard industry of Hampshire County. I couldn't find any information to support this, however. I'll continue to look for dates elsewhere. Thanks for this suggestion! -- Caponer (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Fruit Growers Storage facility also provided refrigerated storage for fruit that was to be shipped as freight on the South Branch Valley Railroad." As the sentence is in past tense it appears that the FGS facility no longer provides this service. Any info as to when it stopped?
 * As with its construction, I'm also unable to find corresponding information on when the fruit refrigeration activity at this facility ceased. -- Caponer (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Charles Heber Parsons III is no longer the owner, having passed away in 2012 per this obit.
 * Following Chuck's passing, the property is currently owned by his son Chip (Charles Heber Parsons IV). I've incorporated this into the text, and I'm working on adding more information on Chuck. -- Caponer (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Washington Place
 * "conveyed Washington" should be "conveyed to Washington"
 * Done! -- Caponer (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Exterior
 * The second paragraph has 3 sentences, each with an inline citation to #11. One inline at the end of the paragraph would suffice.
 * Done! -- Caponer (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Interior
 * "all of which was also hand made" vs. "all of which were handmade"
 * Done! -- Caponer (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Stone addition
 * No suggestions; fine as is.


 * See also
 * Valley View (Romney, West Virginia) is mentioned within the body of the article so doesn't need to be included here
 * Done! -- Caponer (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Bibliography
 * The Federal Writers' Project (1937) reference has a Harv error.
 * I believe this has been taken care of. -- Caponer (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Etc.
 * Images: All are fine ; all are from Commons.
 * Any info on the property's fauna and/or flora?
 * I know that the Parsons family plants corn on the farm, and that there are boxwoods in the lawn, but I have no citations in other texts to support this, just from personal observation. -- Caponer (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Geography
 * I'm hazy on the geography of the property. If you can find info, I'd like to see a section explaining geography/location/grounds (your choice as to how to name the section)... boundaries, property shape, hilly vs. flat.
 * This is pending. I'll try and complete these ASAP. -- Caponer (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started a Geography section, and will work on incorporating text from Mill Creek Mountain and Hanging Rocks, as they are both close by. The image I took of Mill Creek Mountain in my canoe on the South Branch was just upstream from the area of the ridge across from Wappocomo, so it will do. Hanging Rocks is located further north of Wappocomo farm, and is located at an unincorporated area called "Wapocomo." I'll finish the Geography section tomorrow. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

More later... And thank you for all the work you've done on this interesting historical property. If there's anything I should have addressed and didn't, please point it out. I'll await your response to the above points before passing this. I won't bother putting the article on hold unless you'd prefer that I do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rosiestep, thank you for your very thorough review of this article. I know there is a lot of content here to play with, but I knew it would make for a "Good article." With the exception of the last geography note, I've completed all the above tasks so please feel free to take another look and provide me with another round of your input. You're an excellent reviewer and it's a privilege working with you on this project! -- Caponer (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Second look
 * The new 1-sentence paragraph could be incorporated at the end of a prior paragraph.
 * As Mill Creek Mountain runs through 2 counties, extending beyond Wappocomo, please verify that the Mill Creek Mountain photo in the article correlates with the Wappocomo property. An alternate image could be of Hanging Rocks.

Thank you for incorporating the suggestions so quickly. Great job! I've added these few more bits to the review. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Shorten lead?
If I may, I'll comment at this point. Since I'm neither the nominator nor the reviewer, please feel free to move or re-format these comments if that'd make the organization of this page work better for you.

I'd suggest that the lead be shortened by removing some of the less essential information. Per WP:LEAD, the section should be "a summary of [the article's] most important aspects", and "should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs". At this writing, it consists of six paragraphs, two of which are fairly long. I'd suggest removing things like people's dates, some of the names and notable aspects of individual owners, the Faulkner-Parsons fee dispute, the details of the railroad station, and some of the finer points of the architecture. My inclination would be to write it as:
 * First paragraph: as is
 * Second paragraph: ownership of property. Originally Fairfax; skip Casey; don't mention individual Parsonses, but just something like "the Parsons family, prominent in Virginia and West Virginia politics in the 19th century, who continued to hold the property into the 21st century."
 * Third paragraph: two slave-related disputes. Pare these to their essentials: for the terse account in the lead, it's not that critical that we know that Jacob Green escaped with some slaves, returned, and guided away more slaves; nor do we need to know about Mr. Stump, or the Parsons-Faulkner squabble.
 * Fourth paragraph: physical description. Include the ballast bricks here; two-story Georgian is important, but high ceilings and deep verandas are less so.  If it's important to include the railroad, a single sentence in this paragraph would probably take care of it.

I think this'll bring the lead into closer conformity with MOS; more important, it'll make it easier for readers to glean the most important aspects of the article from a quick scan of the lead, and thus decide whether or not to read the entire article. Ammodramus (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! I kept in the railroad piece--because the Potomac Eagle Scenic Railroad is a large draw for Romney tourists, and it is visible from the passenger depot. Ammodramus and Rosiestep, please take another glance at the text now that all the edits have been include. I'd just like to make sure it's on the right track! Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Great job! It has been my pleasure to read the article and to provide the review. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)