Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Steves Homestead

Edward Steves Homestead

 * ... that when the San Antonio Conservation Society restored the Edward Steves Homestead  (pictured), Yale University donated a Chickering grand piano?


 * Alt 1 ... that when the San Antonio Conservation Society restored the Texas Landmark Steves Homestead  (pictured), Yale University donated an antique 1857 grand piano manufactured by Chickering and Sons?


 * Reviewed: Numaga

Created/expanded by Maile66 (talk). Self nom at 01:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I don't know if this is really DYK material. Yes, the article length is barely above the minimum and the hook was referenced. However, forgive me since I don't think the hook given would be that interesting. Arius1998 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This is, forgive me, an odd review. First, DYKcheck gives the length at 2244, about 50% greater than the minimum 1500 prose characters required. "Barely above" would be 1550 or 1600, which is not atypical for DYK, but this is significantly over that. There is no size problem here.
 * If a hook is not exciting or hooky enough, then suggest or request an alternate, rather than rejecting out of hand. "DYK material" is a highly subjective statement and requires something more objective—lack of sources, non-neutral presentation, lack of notability, paraphrasing issues, etc.—to warrant a rejection. This hook may not be great, but it does have me wondering why Yale (in Connecticut) would be donating a fancy (and probably old) grand piano to a homestead in Texas. I do think the article could be structured better, and I'll leave some notes on the article's talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, you've made some valid points on the article's talk page, and I've made edits you suggested. As mentioned in the article's lead, the house is officially a Texas landmark.  Perhaps the reviewer didn't understand that significance. And I guess you can't expect every reviewer to know the prestige of an antique grand piano manufactured by  Chickering in 1857. But I believe Yale and the Chickering brand to be what is interesting about the hook.  Nowhere have I found information that says why Yale made the donation, but make it they did. I was trying to be as brief as possible in the original hook. Perhaps Alt 1 hook above will make it better.  And while not doing my own review, I would like to mention that the image used was recently taken by an editor based in Texas. I mention it only in the fact that, fer-sure, Commons has the license on it. Maile66 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I think you're right: Yale, Chickering, and 1857 are the keys here. (I think "antique" isn't necessary as long as 1857 is there.) I'm going to suggest an ALT2 that's halfway between the original and ALT1 in terms of detail, but both of those hooks are supported by inline sources. Also adding a shorter ALT3 which does give a new fact (1950s) that would need to be both inline cited in the article and independently approved if it is to be used. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that when the San Antonio Conservation Society restored the Steves Homestead (pictured), a Texas landmark, Yale University donated an 1857 Chickering grand piano?
 * ALT3: ... that when the Texas landmark Steves Homestead (pictured) was restored in the 1950s, Yale University donated an 1857 Chickering grand piano?
 * I'll swap you Alt 4 in place of Alt 3. I'd like the San Antonio Conservation Society in the hook. Alt 4 is 183 characters.  And I've made sure it's sourced.  Do we need someone to approve it? Maile66 (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT4: ... that when the Texas landmark Steves Homestead (pictured) was restored by the San Antonio Conservation Society in the 1950s, Yale University donated an 1857 Chickering grand piano?
 * Well, I don't see any inline citation at the end of a sentence that indicates that the restoration occurred in the 1950s. (I'd expect it after the "restored in 1954 as a museum with period furniture" sentence.) I could approve ALT4 myself and leave ALT3 hanging, but not until the inline citation is present. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're just telling me I didn't have the source in the right place, when I had it after the piano. I've put it in both places now. Are we talking about Source 5, "Saving San Antonio"?  It says on page 250 that the owners were first approached by the SACS in 1952. and a few days later were told the owners would donate the house. Pg. 251, the restoration began.  Pg 253, "By Spring..." the home was ready for the King William District Tour.  That had to be 1952 or 1953, because the next sentence is about the Christmas 1953 open house and bizarre. The official opening was April 4, 1954. If this is not sufficient, I find nothing else that detailed on the restoration. Maile66 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what was wanted: adding the source 5 to that sentence. "Restored" is one of those tricky words: does it mean the process of restoration or the end product of same. Since the house changed hands in 1952 and the process began either late that year or in 1953 with the official opening in 1954, I thought the hook saying "1950s" was safest, but using 1954 in the article context is fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As an FYI, I changed the article infobox type, because the Edward Steves Homestead is a contributing property for the King William Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Bexar County, Texas. The article's lead has been sourced to reflect that. Maile66 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is long enough, sourced well, the hooks are interesting and not overlong and facts are supported by inline citations, paraphrasing checked, and article is neutral. All hooks are approved except for ALT3, which was my creation and I can't approve, so I've struck it. ALT4 is preferred by creator and reviewer. Happy to approve this, though disappointed that I won't be able to select it as a lead hook, which was what I'd hoped to do when I originally saw the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)