Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valley View (Romney, West Virginia)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2016.

Valley View (Romney, West Virginia)

 * Nominator(s): West Virginian   (talk)  15:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This article illustrates the architecture and history of the locally-notable historic residence of Valley View in Romney, West Virginia. The article is written in the same style and layout used in other successful Featured Articles written about places and organizations in Hampshire County, West Virginia: Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Romney Literary Society. I welcome your guidance and suggestions, and I look forward to working with you throughout this process to improve and promote this article to Featured Article status. --  West Virginian   (talk)  15:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from
Hi,.

Lead


 * Remove the comma preceding Jr. per MOS:JR


 * Remove the word spacious as that is a weasel word.


 * Checkingfax, thank you for beginning this review, I've removed the comma preceding junior, and I have changed spacious to large. -- West Virginian   (talk)  11:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Briefly interjecting here – a "weasel word" is one that is either vague, ambiguous or potentially misleading; "spacious" is none of these, any more than its replacement "large" is. It's a simple unexaggerated term, and there can be no reasonable objection to it. While we have to avoid overdrawn and hyperbolic words ("magnificent", "tremendous", "fantastic", etc), that doesn't mean we are confined to only the most monochrome of prose expression. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Brianboulton, thank you for weighing in here. I hope you'll be able to find time to give the article a quick glance to offer any guidance or suggestions for its further improvement. Thanks again! -- West Virginian   (talk)  15:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try – I generally enjoy these gently untopical articles that deal with architecture, topography and a little history. I should have some time available next week to take a closer look. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Brianboulton, I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you! -- West Virginian   (talk)  12:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

History

Geography

Architecture

See also

References

Bibliography

External links


 * Per MOS:LAYOUT, Portals should be in the See also section, if there is one, which there is. More later. Cheers!  05:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Checkingfax, I've moved the portals into the see also section per your suggestion. Thanks again! -- West Virginian   (talk)  11:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I've started to read through, and will in due course post a list of comments on prose etc.. In the meantime, there is a slight issue concerning the initial grant of land in 1649. Your Zimmerman source (p.8) says that the grant in 1649 was made by "King George III", an obvious error (George didn't become king until 1760), so I'd be inclined not to cite this fact to that source. There is a further problem in stating that the 1649 grant was made by "Charles II of England", as Charles was not recognised as England's king until the Restoration in 1660. Any grant of land made by him as a putative king in 1649 would have had no legal basis, a fact recognised in your William and Mary Quarterly source, which states "the grant remained without force till 1662" when Charles renewed it. The complex history of the grant between 1662 and 1688 is somewhat glossed over in the article, as the W&M source indicates, and I would recommend some rewriting of the first History paragraph, to clarify the picture. (Do you have JSTOR access to the full W&M article: If not, I'll help you out). Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Brianboulton, thank you tremendously for your thoughtful comment and for your suggestions. I've removed the Zimmerman source due to the obvious error, and I thank you for pointing this out. While Charles II was not yet King of England during this time, he was the King of Scotland from January 1649 on. Although, you are correct that the land grants were made as the claimant to the English throne. I concur with you that this should be illustrated more clearly in this article. I used to have access to JSTOR when I originally wrote this article, but my access has since lapsed. Any assistance you could provide me in reacquiring content from that article for a better illustration of the grant's history would be very very appreciated indeed! As you can see, this rewrite would also be incorporated into several other articles that discuss the grant's origins. -- West Virginian   (talk)  12:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll post something on your talk in a few days (I'll enjoy doing a bit of historical research!) Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See article talk. I'll be resuming my general review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for sharing this information with me here. I will finish drafting this paragraph over the next few days. As you know, this will affect at least ten other articles as well, so I look forward to your input and further review. Once again, thank you for bringing over this information from the W&M Quarterly! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nine days on, and I see no further work on the article. Can you update, please? Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Noswall59: I was going to mentioned the issue with Charles II that Brian has pointed out above, but I see I have been beaten to it! I do have a few other qualms: As an overall comment, the history section seems very thorough. I wish I had the sources to provide such a detail and comprehensive overview of land ownership on my side of the pond. The prose was clear and engaging, and I felt that the odd biographical detail did not detract from the narrative. I have not had such a detailed look at the other sections, but they also appear to be high-quality. I am leaning support pending the resolution of the Charles II issue and replies to my comments above. I will need to check the other sections more thoroughly as well. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
 * I think a bit more care needs to be taken with primary sources. The birth-death dates for Elizabeth "Bettie" Ann Smith in the first paragraph of the Harmison family ownership section are not supported by the source, nor is the fact that she was actually called Elizabeth; I also could not see where her mother's name is found in that source.
 * At the end of the third paragraph in the same section, the article states that Harmison lived at Valley View until his death; however, the source (currently no. 21) doesn't seem to say that. Maybe I am not reading it correctly, but it doesn't seem to be there to me.
 * "board-and-batten 1961–1962 kitchen" –> should be 1961–62 as per MOS (the full years are only used for birth-death dates, or when we are dealing with different centuries). I think you repeat this date format elsewhere.
 * I notice that in the 'see also' section, "List of Plantations in West Virginia" is given. I hadn't appreciated until that point that this was a plantation – in what sense is this word used?

Closing comment -- having seen no activity from the nominator here or on WP in general for a couple of weeks, I'm going to archive this review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.