Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sloan–Parker House/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2018.

Sloan–Parker House

 * Nominator(s): West Virginian   (talk)  18:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This article details the history and architecture of a significant historic property on the National Register of Historic Places in Hampshire County, West Virginia. This article is consistent with other NRHP-related articles in Hampshire County that are Featured Articles, including Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Valley View (Romney, West Virginia). I welcome your reviews and suggestions to further improve this article so that it fulfills FA status. Thank you! -- West Virginian   (talk)  18:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the image review, ! -- West Virginian   (talk)  02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Usernameunique
I reviewed this article at GA, and have nothing more to add. It's comprehensive, thoroughly researched, and well written. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you again for taking the time to engage in your thorough and comprehensive review, and for providing me with so much worthwhile feedback to improve its overall quality! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Ref 22: The link goes to a completely illegible version of the source. You might consider switching the link to the pdf, where you get something marginally better, but even so I was unable to locate the source article.
 * , first and foremost, thank you so much for engaging in this source review of this article! I apologize for this belated response. I've included a link to the original PDF and also included an archival link to this PDF. Please let me know if this will suffice. -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Refs 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47: It seems that a subscription is required to obtain legible versions of these articles, so I suggest you add templates to these refs. Also, please check the link in ref 43, which so far as I can make out does not go to a "Ruth H. Parker" article, and also the link in ref 44 which doesn't appear to go to a "New arrivals" piece.
 * A better solution would be to clip the articles (example), which makes them publicly accessible. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have added templates to each of these references per your suggestion. I have also corrected the Ruth H. Parker reference., I have considered doing this in the past, but I was unsure whether a clipped article would be permissible for a Wikipedia reference due to the possibility of copyright issues. Do you happen to know whether Wikipedia has any guidance for this? For the time-being, I've added the subscription template until we can find more guidance. --  West Virginian   (talk)  15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Copyright shouldn't be an issue, —As I understand it Newspapers.com/Newspaperarchive.com have agreements with the papers (otherwise they would be liable for copyright issues themselves), and even if they didn't small clippings would almost certainly be considered fair use. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Bibliography: It's unnecessary clutter to include both ISBNs and OCLCs
 * , would this be a FAC deal-breaker if I left both serial numbers in each reference? I know that some of our readers prefer to be linked directly to OCLC WorldCat's library, while others prefer the ISBN link to Wikipedia's "Book sources" page (which does include OCLC among its listed links). If having both of these contradicts FAC and Wikipedia guidance, I have no problem limiting each reference to just one serial number. Thank you for the catch! -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Subject to the above, sources are in good order and of the approporiate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good day ! Thank you tremendously for taking the time to engage in this FAC sources review. I will be addressing each of your comments and suggestions later today (Eastern US time). Please feel free to let me know if you have any additional suggestions for this article in the meantime. And, thank you for weighing in here with your recommendations, too! I look forward to addressing all the above this evening. — West Virginian   (talk)  11:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you again for your review above! I've addressed each of your comments and suggestions, so please let me know if you have any outstanding questions and I'll address them as soon as I can. I always value and appreciate your insight and expertise, so thank you for weighing in here! -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I just wanted to touch base with you to see if you had any other outstanding issues with the article’s sourcing. Please take another look and let me know if you have any further suggestions. As always, I appreciate your guidance and your contributions to Wikipedia. — West Virginian   (talk)  13:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support by Coal town guy
Confirmed all ISBN ref sources, well done. Article is obviously GA and certainly should be a FA. I am just curious if its possible to get interior shots??Coal town guy (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon
I am no expert so all I can offer is a few comments: Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * why does the lead have references [2][3]? Is this a controversial statement? If not, no need for references
 * lead seems a bit long for me, in relation to the whole article. Some sentences seem not crucial (Fairfax bit for instance)
 * (concurrently U.S. Route 220 and WV 28) --> maybe shorten this to (US 220 / WV 28)? and the subsequent ones as well, all these concurrently's distract a bit from the main message
 * west of Mill Creek valley --> west of the Mill Creek valley
 * Romney to their property in the Mill Creek valley --> this sounds like they owned it prior to moving, is that true?
 * The Sloan family sold --> do we know who sold it? Were Richard and Charlotte still alive? Why did the family sell it? Did they move away?
 * also indicate that the Parker family also --> repetition
 * married Isabel "Belle" Parker --> was that her maiden name? In the next sentence Eleanor's maiden name is given, so that suggests it is. Same question for Kate Parker.
 * She had the wooden --> Belle or Eleanor?
 * caption: North and west elevations, as seen in July 2016 --> is this the original stone part or the wooden addition? That would make a better caption here. Now it's just a duplication of the earlier photo.
 * and several bedrooms --> a bit odd that we have so much detail elsewhere and then no actual number here

Comments from Ian
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also not an expert on historic houses but the article appears well written -- my habitual copyedit was pretty light -- and seems comprehensive but succinct.
 * I'll take as read Brian's source review and Nikki's image check.
 * Like Coal town guy I think it'd be great to see some interior shots if available, but obviously depends on availability/licensing.
 * Close to supporting but will await responses/actions to Edwin's outstanding points before finalising.

Coordinator note: There has been no activity here for weeks, so this will be archived shortly. Please feel free to renominate when you return to editing. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.