Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pershing House/archive1


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC).

Pershing House

 * Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List because this is an iconic historic structure in San Antonio, Texas, that dates back to the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. When it was originally built, it was called "Quarters No. 6, Staff Post". After General John J. Pershing lived there for only a few months, it bore his name. I first wrote this article in 2012, and have recently worked to bring it to FL quality. The issue of the remaining redlinks was addressed at Peer Review. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh
I gave it a review at peer review, and am happy to give it another read:
 * Try to keep the lead section not more than 4 paragraphs.


 * "the residence of 16 commanding officers ." — erroneous space


 * "Those who called it home were some of the most accomplished leaders in the United States Army prior to their being given charge of the base." — "Those who called it home" reads a bit odd.
 * shortened it to simply "They were some of ...".


 * "only John J. Pershing and George Washington ever held this rank" — do we need to mention George Washington again in the key?
 * removed.


 * "1881–83" v. "1902–1904" — consistency needed. There are several other similar inconsistencies in the dashes.


 * Is the Facebook link in "External links" section useful?
 * removed.


 * We still have few instances of "WW I", that should be changed to "World War I"
 * but I know found one.


 * "Spanish–American Warr" — I think 'Warr' is 'War'
 * Done with the above issues. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking good overall. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the list for promotion as a FL. Would appreciate if you could review this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This citation template misuses location. That parameter is to hold the publisher's location (city usually) when the source was published; does not usually apply to on-line sources.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed - thanks for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed - thanks for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * "were initially created 1953–1955 by Julia Cotton White": I don't know what the source means by "wife of the Fourth Army commander, 1953-55 made a gift", and I don't know what the other sources say. "created by 1955" or "created in the 1950s" would work if the sources are a little fuzzy on this point.
 * "Fourth Army" is just one of those military designations, by geographic location I think. It's all the US Army, but he was in charge of the Fourth Army part of it.— Maile  (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "DSM, Distinguished Service Medal": The column that these appear in is not sortable, but you've got "DSM" showing up before "Distinguished Service Medal", which doesn't look right.
 * Changed for consistency. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the alpha-order sorting of the "Rank" column.
 * Some of the links to the generals are redirects; this isn't a problem per se, but make sure the links and link text that you've got are what you want.
 * OK. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
 * 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
 * 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
 * 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
 * 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
 * 4. It is navigable.
 * 5. It meets style requirements. On image issues, I'll defer.
 * 6. It is stable.
 * Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support - for your review, and suggestions. I just now saw this, as RL took priority yesterday. — Maile  (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

 * First instinct was upon seeing a straightforward article about a house was "how is this a list?" Is there really so little to write about the house itself?  As the caption on the table suggests, this is really "Fort Sam Houston commanding officers who lived at Pershing House 1881 through 1973".
 * I think its inclusion on the register is secondary to its main task(s), why is it even notable, that needs to be represented up front.
 * The NRHP is the only reason it qualified. Without that, it's just government property. If I might, combine these two as an answer for you. I created this in my early, early days of Wikipedia.  So, I don't remember if I was advised to make it a list, or it just happened. But every decent list has a lead of sorts. This was on National Register of Historic Places listings in Bexar County, Texas, which are usually listed/written exactly as the US government National Register of Historic Places listings.  They didn't name it a list. The PDF source we used titled it "Pershing House", as it is still listed at the Texas Historic Sites Atlas. And with NRHP articles, we tend to go with what the approved Nomination Form contains. This one in particular had two pages of the list of the leaders who lived in the house - rank, name and date of occupancy up through 1973. That was important to NRHP as the plaque listing those names was part of the qualifying inventory of the nomination. And that's why we included it as a list - it was part of the qualifyig aspect.  Beyond 1973, we're dealing with BLP issues of military leaders who may still be influential in the government. Since the military tends to keep some information to itself, that is not available to us. But without all those heroes who lived there, the house, no matter how grand, is just a house. — Maile  (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you that lead sentence needed to be punched up a bit. I may have not done what you had in mind, but I did change it so the reader immediately knows its importance. — Maile  (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "was admitted to the Union" link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Link Comanche. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider linking Fort Sill. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "happened in" passive, maybe "took place in" Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Feels like at no point in the lead you say "and this is what is known as Pershing House".
 * Just added a little, "Architect Alfred Giles designed the general staff quarters, as well as the commanding general's quarters, now known at Pershing House." Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "six-and-one-half baths" don't know what that means.
 * Apparently, it's American real estate lingo. I refer you to ChrisTheDude's question on that.  The NRHP form says "six and one half baths" - generally speaking, that usually means there is not a bathtub, maybe a shower, or maybe just a sink and loo.  It varies, but it's American lingo.  Done - — Maile  (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "equivalent to $457,931" probably only need nearest $1000. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Constructed in 1881 at a cost of..." this is odd as it comes after descriptions of improvements to it, surely we should try to be chronological here? Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "in the United States Army prior" you mentioned "Army" before so should really use the formal title and link it that time. Done - — Maile  (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "lived in the house.[7] The house has.." new para but still repetitive reading. Done - — Maile  (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "the American Expeditionary Forces in " link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "five-star General of the Armies" link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Isaac D. White, who" why not linked here if he's linked in the table? Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * " General (4 stars) currently located in The Pentagon" what does that mean, these individuals are dead mostly.
 * Reworded a bit. That comment was for modern-day readers who associate the Chief of Staff generals with the Pentagon. Before The Pentagon was completed in 1943, the Chief of Staff 4-star generals worked out of military base headquarters. After 1943, they have all been stationed at the Pentagon.  Done - — Maile  (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)   14:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Image column has white space on the right of every image, why not just let that column relax to fit?
 * Could this be your browser? I don't see that on Firefox, Chrome or the Edge. It's all evenly spaced on all images, and there's nothing in the coding to indicate anything. — Maile  (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm using Chrome, and I do see that white space on right side of images. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't see it on my Chrome at normal size, 100% zoom. But if I shrink the zoom to what is teeny on my screen - say 70% or less - it starts looking like that.  The only column that had a set width was the Notes column.  I've removed that.  But if that doesn't work, I don't have an answer. — Maile  (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is now looking fine for me. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done - Good, then. — Maile  (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Linked items in a sortable table should be linked every time because after a re-sort, there's no guarantee that the linked item will appear first.
 * Not sure what you mean. The Notes column is not sortable.  The names in the Names column only appear once for each. — Maile  (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done - taken care of. — Maile  (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Union general during the Civil war," link Union forces and last time you used it I think it was Civil War, not Civil war.
 * Standardized all mentions as American Civil War. Done - — Maile  (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Several notes are fragments so don't need full stops, check them all.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Peninsula Campaign," our article doesn't capitalise the C.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Spanish-American War" en-dash not hyphen. Several of these.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can link New York City Police Commissioner.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Philippine Insurrection" link?→Philippine–American War
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Link Army Chief of Staff.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Philippine insurrection" capital I for consistency.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) - see above, this is correctly the Philippine–American War


 * "Antique Panay in the Philippines." link Antique Panay, and did the name change formally from "Philippine Islands" to "the Philippines" at this point? The Wikipedia article refers to Philippines.  If I input Philippine Islands as a link in Wikipedia, it always redirects to Philippines.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Southern Dept. and VIII Corps Area." what's that?
 * The source is the Army. The military routinely rearranges itself and designates different names to different areas, but there is no existing article about the Southern Department. — Maile  (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the term "Southern Dept" altogether, but linked VIII Corps Area. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Veteran of the Spanish–American War and the Philippine–American War," full stop, not comma.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Moro Rebellion" link?
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "American Expeditionary Forces during World War I; Commander 2nd Division and United States Army Field Artillery School." links?
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) except that there is nothing to link for Commander 2nd Division


 * "the Guadalcanal Campaign" small c.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Distinguished Service Medal" link.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 442nd RCT - any point in this as you never use this abbreviation.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) removed


 * "Ryukyu Islands" link.
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "director J13 operations" what are those?
 * Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) I've added a link. It just means the classification level of workers he oversaw. Just a little American terminology for you. When it comes to the military, everybody has a number and letter somewhere classifying them. That includes civilians who work on military base, so we don't know for sure.
 * Added note: "director J13 operations" no longer exists in the table. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all I have on a really brisk canter over the article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've addressed all. — Maile (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Why "The Department of Defense" vs. "US Department of the Interior"?
 * United States Department of the Interior is over the National Parks Service. That's who certifies whether or not any property is eligible for National Register of Historic Places. And the form literally says "United States Department of the Interior". But if you are asking why I didn't say US Department of Defense elsewhere, for years I've been using the drop-down template in the edit window to format sources. The Joint Base San Antonio site, for instance, literally says it's part of "The Department Of Defense", but does not specify "The United States Department of Defense".  Maybe it should be standardized for this nomination, but I've been going with however any government site presents itself. — Maile  (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Some refs have day month year, some month day year.
 * Per WP:MILFORMAT, I have inserted {:{Use dmy dates}} at the top of the page. That should standardize it.  Let me know if I missed anything on this. — Maile  (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the MOH winners are sourced to "Military Times" and some to valor.militarytimes.com. They seem the same.
 * I found three, and standardized all to "Military Times". — Maile (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref 1, " "National Register Information System", I don't see that name on the page and it's just a search page anyway.
 * I've done what I can on this, in the fact that I removed the Ref template itself, but left the number. It still goes to a blank page. That's a template that pre-dates my participation on Wikipedia. Have a look at National Register of Historic Places listings in Bexar County, Texas. The number itself comes from the "Date Listed" column that appears on all NRHP sites on Wikipedia, which is considerable.  I'm guessing that the number probably comes from a regular listing from the Dept of the Interior. That template was created by  more than a decade ago. Maybe they know where this number comes from.  I'm thinking there are regular announcements lists that come from the Dept of the Interior, but I really don't know. — Maile  (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref 2, "Joint Base San Antonio > Information > JBSA History & Fact Sheets" I get a page called "Joint Base San Antonio History". Is the information sourced to this page?
 * Yes, but eliminating Ref 1 in the Infobox brought this one up to Ref 1. At the bottom, it lists the bases that now fall under Joint Base San Antonio. The military has a tendency to rearrange its structure when convenient. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref 4, the text to be sourced is "After the Texas annexation to the Union in 1845, the United States Army became a steady presence in what was then designated the Department of Texas", and the relevant part of the source, as far as I can see (it is a list of records held) is "Department of Texas, 1853-58. Department of Texas, 1865-66, and subordinate or related commands, including Eastern and Central Districts of Texas, Department of Texas, 1865-66; Subdistrict of San Antonio, 1865- 66; and post at San Antonio, TX, 1865. Department of Texas, 1870-1913, and subordinate or related commands, including District of Upper Brazos, 1877-78." I'd question whether the information is adequately sourced.
 * Not exactly sure what you mean. If you are questioning the site sourcing, it's the records of the US Government, and the site is the US National Archives. That's about as adequate as it's going to be.  But feel free to suggest something else if you like. — Maile  (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 is asked to support material re Comanche chief Parker. I don't see it in the source material.
 * Added source. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The combining of Fort Sam Houston, Randolph Air Force Base, Lackland Air Force Base and Martindale Army Airfield, to create Joint Base San Antonio, took place in 2010." is supposed to be sourced to a page that seems the main page of the Joint Base's website. I don't see anything that says that on that page, though it might be elsewhere on the website.
 * That's because the JBSA site keeps flipping its pages around. I've updated the URL, "History of 502d Air Base Wing". At least as of my typing this, it's the history of the combining the bases. Input "2010" in your search bar, and, as of my writing this, that fact is the 3rd click, "On Oct. 1, 2010, Joint Base San Antonio achieved full operational capability." — Maile  (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Refs 6 and 7 appear to be the identical document.
 * Combined. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref 8 nowhere mentions that Augur lived in Pershing House.
 * The list on the NRHP form lists him as the first resident in the house. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm going to pause and await responses. Possibly I'm missing something here, but this seems to be a high levels of quibbles per source.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah ... the result of a decade of little tweaks. I think I should have gone over all of these before, but  I'll get back to you. Let's pause this a bit while I fix the above, and have another look through. — Maile  (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done with your first go-around. In response to your "high levels of quibbles per source", some were my real errors, some of it because of a pre-existing NRHP template issue, and some were questions that needed to be asked. — Maile  (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've had my second wind now, and am ready to finish this.
 * The sources should now match what is in the Notes column. There are 50-plus names on this list, and I went through all of them. As noted elsewhere above, the NRHP list ends with 1973 - beyond that year, we would be dealing with BLP.
 * Because the NRHP form is 18 pages long, I moved the sourcing reference down to "Bibliography", and have used SFN references to point to specific pages. In particular, if you look at SFN reference by the heading of the table, you'll see the names and dates of their residency can be found on pp. 6-7. Hopefully, this will cut down on confusion as to why this is a list article - because the NRHP provided the list itself.
 * There are numerous sites out there in support of military history, and I've checked them out as best I could for reliability. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, will be back to this ASAP.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Resuming. Seems cleaned up. I haven't checked every ref, but done a sampling and they seem in order, with a few quibbles.
 * You say "The combining of Fort Sam Houston, Randolph Air Force Base, Lackland Air Force Base and Martindale Army Airfield, to create Joint Base San Antonio, took place in 2010." but reference 5 says "In August 2009, the 502d ABW reactivated at JBSA-Fort Sam Houston to provide installation support to Joint Base San Antonio, which encompassed JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, -Lackland, -Randolph, -Camp Bullis and other DOD locations in and around San Antonio." That reads to me like Joint Base-San Antonio was in operation in 2009.
 * Changed it to 2009. — Maile (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Reference 11 has limited/subscription access and should be noted as such. page
 * I can't access it now myself. Swapped it out for ref NRHP page 4, says the same thing. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, this and associated pages are a good reference on the career of officers who were West Point graduates.
 * Cool site. Thanks.— Maile  (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Isaac D. White, our article on him says he was buried in Pine Hill Cemetery, Peterborough, New Hampshire. I don't have a good source on that though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cannot confirm the burial except to say Find A Grave, which we aren't supposed to use, says both he and his wife are buried there. My perception is that this was a very private man, as there were very little San Antonio mentions of him in the various newspaper archives while he was commanding officer. I think he kept a low profile. — Maile (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * are you finished with this source review, or are you just taking a pause here? I know it can be a lot to wade through. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm done. Passes.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Delegates question

 * Curiosity - what happens if this stalls out here? Looks like TRM possibly doesn't feel I've adequately addressed all of his issues, probably on his question of why this should be a list, but my answers are within the style I've learned from a decade (or so) time period I've been working on NRHP lists-articles, and I've done a lot. So, while I'm in line with the American NRHP style regarding lists, he and I have to agree to disagree on that point. So, if this nomination never has any other feedback but what is here, is the nomination dead on arrival?  — Maile  (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

TRM never came back to this, but from looking through this I think it's fine as-is: without the NRHP registration, this is just some house, and the only reason it's on there is because of the list of notable people who lived in it, rather than because there's something particularly interesting about the architecture. I'm going to go ahead and promote. -- Pres N  14:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, fine by me. I just haven't had the time/inclination to get back here so frequently.  Glad to see it's been promoted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

don't one of you have to put the FLCClosed|promoted template on here for this to recognized by the bot? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops, fixed. -- Pres N  00:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.