Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgetown Car Barn/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019.

Georgetown Car Barn

 * Nominator(s):  Ergo Sum  03:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The Georgetown Car Barn is a historic building in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. that once served as a hub station and storage facility for the city's trolley cars. Construction of the building required excavation of a massive amount of earth, leading to the construction of the Exorcist steps. Gradually, it was converted into office space, housing the International Police Academy, and is now used by Georgetown University. Today, it is one of the most prominent buildings of the Georgetown skyline.  Ergo Sum  03:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Ceoil

 * I think the film should mentioned by name in the lead, before the blue link to the steps. Ceoil  (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  04:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The Car Barn was purchased by Douglas Development Corporation in 1997, which continues to own the building, and it was renovated the following year. The Douglas Development Corporation was renovated?
 * I do believe that's a grammatically correct sentence; the direct object of the last clause refers back to the subject of the first independent clause, which is the Car Barn. Nonetheless, to be extra clear, I've replaced the commas with dashes.  Ergo Sum  02:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Ceoil  (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then after the word tenant appears twice. Ceoil  (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Reworded.  Ergo Sum  02:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note am leaning support but will probably be next weekend before have read it all. Ceoil  (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you had an opportunity to peruse the article once more?  Ergo Sum  04:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When the Capital Traction Company ceased to exist - vague, "merged with the Washington Rapid Transit". Sorry for being so tardy on this. Having another look. Ceoil  (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased the sentence so that it should be clearer.  Ergo Sum  02:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ergo, have broken the lead into three paras - two reasons; logical flow and I wanted to make make the film connection / hook standout more. Ok to revert. Ceoil  (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me.  Ergo Sum  03:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd go further; two hooks I don't think you make enough of, Friedkin's choice of location (there are many many sources on this, and would give a dedicated section in the article body), and the underlying economic and societal reasons behind the the merger, the later of which seems breezed over at present, the former is bizarrely not there at all. In general I don't think the article pokes its head above the larger forces, eg electrification, that shaped its destiny, but is instead two narrowly focused on the effects it had on the specific building structure; this to me results in lost opportunity, and a rather pedestrian, disappointing article. I'm Oppose for now, until the article is somewhat reshaped. Ceoil  (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to write too extensively on the larger forces at play behind the creation of the building, because those really should be covered in thematic articles, such as Streetcars in Washington, D.C. or Streetcars in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. Since this article is about the building, I think it should be confined to its immediate circumstances. However, if you can identify those sources regarding the choice of location, I'd be happy to include them.  Ergo Sum  22:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would put in just a sentence or two more on the merger. Re the steps, a mention that they are also a setting in Blatty's original book. Ceoil  (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Moving to Support either way. Ceoil  (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1
The article looks in very good shape. Just a few points for consideration below:
 * Lead
 * "Designed by architect Waddy Butler Wood" - to avoid the false title, perhaps, "Designed by the architect Waddy Butler Wood".
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  00:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * History
 * "Thereafter, the site was used to store horse-drawn trolley cars" - this puzzled me a little as we've been told three sentences before that the building had already been converted to hold horses and trolleys from 1861?
 * The warehouse was used for horses in 1861. The Car Barn was not built until 1895.  Ergo Sum  00:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Construction
 * "Adjacent to the car barn are a set of stairs commonly known as the Exorcist steps" - not at the time of construction, obviously. Perhaps, "Adjacent to the car barn are a set of stairs now commonly known as the Exorcist steps". And car barn is capitalised elsewhere.
 * Clarified.  Ergo Sum  00:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "including the well-known cottage of E. D. E. N. Southworth" - what is it about the cottage that makes it well-known? It's not specifically mentioned in Southworth's article. I see Source 7 mentions it. Move it to the end of that sentence to cover it?
 * Added a clarifying footnote.  Ergo Sum  00:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The three-story, 180-by-242-foot (55 by 74 m) building" - ignore if, as I suspect, it's an AmEng/BrEng thing, but "storey" in this context has an 'e' in BrEng.
 * Pretty sure story is the standard spelling in American English.  Ergo Sum  00:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The second and third floors were connected with steel trestles to allow trolleys coming across the Potomac River from Rosslyn serving Washington, Arlington, Falls Church, and projected to serve Great Falls and Old Dominion" - perhaps, "The second and third floors were connected with steel trestles to allow for trolleys coming across the Potomac River from Rosslyn serving Washington, Arlington, Falls Church, and projected to serve Great Falls and Old Dominion"? Or "to give access for trolleys coming across..."
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  00:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Redesign
 * "the Car Barn thereafter began its long period of deterioration". This puzzled me a bit, as did the lead line, "Not long after its opening, the building began to fall into a state of disrepair". Did it deteriorate because it was poorly designed, or because its design rapidly became unsuited to the changed needs of the time? I think the latter? I wonder if this could be clarified, although I'm currently stumped for a suggestion as to how.
 * Probably a mix of the two, but the way I read the sources, it seems to be primarily the former. Certainly by the mid-20th century, the building suffered neglect. I think I've clarified it in the body of the article.  Ergo Sum  00:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Further conversions of track space was converted to office space in 1921 and 1922" - "Further areas....."?
 * Fixed.  Ergo Sum  00:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Later uses
 * "In 1992, the owner of DC Transit System, O. Roy Chalk, was foreclosed against" - the ending sounds a little clunky, but it might be the correct legal term. "was made bankrupt"? "went into liquidation"?
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  00:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * I've no knowledge of the building, but the sources look recent and representative. The online ones are also accessible, which is a boon, and will help the Source review.

It's an interesting read. I hope these suggestions are of some help. KJP1 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've gone through and incorporated them into the article.  Ergo Sum  00:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any comments on the overall suitability of the article's candidacy?  Ergo Sum  04:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry - I completely forgot to come back this. My comments have been fully addressed and I'm very pleased to offer my belated Support. KJP1 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Georgetown_seal.png needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The image was transcluded by Georgetown University. I replaced that image with the svg version, which works better.  Ergo Sum  21:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * New version is also missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  Ergo Sum  03:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage
Mostly looking at sourcing and source entry formatting here, per my usual habit: A lot of this is just FAC minutiae, but I'm concerned that the quality of a few sources (especially Krupp and, as currently presented, Anderson) don't meet the FAC standards. I'd also like to ensure that this does in fact represent a comprehensive survey of the available literature. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Websites and italics. I hate this, and the templates don't really help. The "website" parameter applies italics, but that's not always what you want. Historically, best practice on the project has been: 1) if the website is primarily known for a print-format work of the same name that would be italicized, then italicize; 2) if the website and its publisher have the same name, and that's not a name that would typically be subject to italicization in a reference, use the "publisher" parameter instead to avoid italics; 3) otherwise, use the website's name in italics and only include the publisher if it is necessary for clarity. For example, in this article, the reference to The Georgetowner is correctly italicized because that was a magazine before it was an e-magazine, but "Library of Congress" and "Douglas Development Corporation" shouldn't be italicized in their respective entries.
 * Done.
 * Speaking of HABS, I note you cite the document selecting the structure for the Historic American Buildings Survey but never mention that in the text. Should you? Has it received any other designations along those lines?
 * I've added a line about its HABS listing. It is not currently listed on any other historic registries to my knowledge, though it was recently nominated for the National Register of Historic Places, which I don't think warrants inclusion.  Ergo Sum  03:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just about anything would be a better quality source than Krepp, a book about "haunted places" in Georgetown. You may want to check, but on first glance, I think that may be replaceable with Mike High's The C&O Canal Companion: A Journey through Potomac History?
 * I've replaced Krepp with a better source.  Ergo Sum  04:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That Jack Anderson source is a mess. The pdf you link to is apparently something like the scanned result of a FOIA request? Based on its appearance, I'm 90% sure that what we're looking at there is a scan of an article clipped from some newspaper. The FOIA document is not a reliable source. The newspaper would be, but that's not what you're giving a citation to. In any case, it's not immediately obvious to me where the Washington's-Merry-Go-Round title originated.
 * I don't see what's wrong with the source. It's perfectly acceptable to cite declassified documents, and this one happens to be hosted on the CIA's website (not that of e.g. some conspiracy theorist). If I could find the article elsewhere online, I would link to it, but I find it nowhere else. I've removed the merry-go-round title, since I don't recall where I found it. Ergo Sum  04:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I was able to find the article reprinted in a different newspaper. I've the replaced the CIA source with this one.  Ergo Sum   20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we could do better than the DAVIS Construction source (the commercial website of a general contractor).
 * I agree that if a better source were available, it would be preferable. However, I cannot find one, and the statements cited by the DAVIS sources are brief and contain things within the scope of the company's business.  Ergo Sum  04:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Picky moment of the day: ideally, your ISBNs should be properly hyphenated.
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  03:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to it, but the American Institute of Architects appears to have a two-page discussion of this building in their book about the city's landmarks. Perhaps that's work investigating?
 * I can't access it online, but I'll try to get a hold of it this week at a library.  Ergo Sum  04:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there anything to be gained by looking for sources contemporary with any of the building's major events?
 * Do you have any in mind? I'm not aware of any that are of particular note/provide anything other than what is already included.  Ergo Sum  04:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough source review. This is helpful. I'll go through and see if I can rectify those concerns.  Ergo Sum  19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed what's out there a second time, I think it's pretty comprehensive. The only additional item I found is the recent NRHP nomination, which goes into some great detail about the architectural modifications made over time. I'll see what's suitable for inclusion in the article.  Ergo Sum  04:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving to support here with the various corrections and the identification of the actual source from the CIA newspaper clipping. Were you able to track down that American Institute of Architects source? At this point, I don't see why it would be essential to do so, but I'm just curious if it was a useful hit. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried to get a hold of it through my academic library, but they didn't have access to it. I could try to track it down through a different public library, but if you don't think it's essential, then I'll refrain from doing so.  Ergo Sum  22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Even the FA standard doesn't require consulting literally every potential source. I'm entirely happy to support promotion even absent that one, although I admit that were I in your place, I'd probably try to interlibrary loan that one out of personal curiosity. Regardless, nice work on this article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66
I believe I've addressed all your comments.  Ergo Sum  04:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Intended dually as a station for passengers Should be "Intended for dual use as a station..."
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  04:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Car Barn is built originally supported a tobacco warehouse that was constructed in 1761,[1] which stored tobacco for auction I think that the first "tobacco" can be dispensed with and link warehouse.
 * Done.  Ergo Sum  04:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that link to Old Dominion is wrong as it's in Central Virginia.
 * Right you are. It should have been the railroad, not the town.  Ergo Sum  04:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It was to place storage tracks on the roof of the building, but never did. ??
 * Rephrased.  Ergo Sum  04:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * creating a lit well on the third floor Do you mean a lightwell?
 * That's the language the source uses, but the more modern syntax works just as well.  Ergo Sum  04:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:APPENDIX says to use headers when appendices like "Sources" rather than simply bolding them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  Ergo Sum  04:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.