Wikipedia:Peer review/Swindler House/archive1

Swindler House


I'm interested to learn about the "Good article" designation and possibly to try and develop articles about individual historic houses to earn that. Many years ago I participated as an occasional reviewer and I submitted a list-article about historic sites in New York State for peer review, which helped me in nominating it for Featured List designation, but I haven't learned about what's needed to get Good or Featured article status for an article about an individual historic site. This one is about a place I visited myself last summer. Is it possible for a fairly short article like this, on a topic which may be interesting to some but IMO shouldn't be covered excessively in Wikipedia, to earn "Good article status"? Or is that only for topics that are very lengthy? And just what would make this article better, anyhow? Your attention and any comments will be appreciated.

Thanks, Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1
A few thoughts. I've put the GA criteria below for ease of reference:


 * Criteria
 * 1. Well-written
 * 2. Verifiable with no original research
 * 3. Broad in its coverage
 * 4. Neutral
 * 5. Stable
 * 6. Illustrated


 * Length - there's certainly no bar to GA, or FA for that matter, based on length. The relevant criterion is 3. Broad, i.e. does it give comprehensive coverage of the topic's main features.


 * Sourcing - I also interpret 3. to mean that the article references all major sources about the topic, i.e. it includes any significant coverage the building has had. And this is the nub of the difficulty of writing about minor buildings - there is often very little coverage. Of course, some houses, e.g. Chartwell / Powis Castle, have more coverage than you can shake a stick at, but for many, e.g. Millbrook, Llanvihangel Crucorney / Little Pitt Cottage, the sources are very sparse. In England, you normally have two rock-solid reliables, The Historic England Listing record, the equivalent of your National Register of Historic Places, and Pevsner's Buildings of England, of which there's not currently an American equivalent, although I understand it is a work in progress. In Wales, which I write about a lot, you have three, the Cadw listings, the RCAHMW listings and the Pevsner Buildings of Wales series. Then it's just a question of what else you can find. But again, paucity of sources isn't a GA bar, as long as you cover what exists. But it does make it harder to make the article both Broad and Verifiable.


 * No original research - Turning to the specifics of this article, my first concern is Criterion 2, Verifiable with no OR. For me, the whole third para. of Description and history is OR, sourced to your visit and your viewing Google. I think that, unchanged, this will be an insuperable bar to GA.


 * Wording - while we're on Crit. 2, I think some of the wording is a bit too close to the source wording. There are some quite long quotes, e.g. "from the others in that it is four bays rather than three or five bays in width. It also contains an enclosed corner stair in the south room which opens into that room. This is the only such example noted in the county. The removal of the wing to the south has not compromised the significant form of the structure, nor have other alterations.", which might be better rendered in your own words; and some close paraphrasing, e.g. [ARTICLE] "mantels having central tablets with sunbursts and reeded pilasters on fireplaces in the north and south rooms" / [SOURCE] "mantels contain central tablet with sunburst and reeded pilasters in both north and south rooms". Some good editors have got into deep waters on this issue, and it can be hard to handle, particularly if you're using a bunch of architectural terms, so it's always worth bearing in mind.


 * Sourcing again (Crit. 2B) - while we're on sourcing, it would be good to have Source 2 as a PDF, as you've done with 5. Otherwise, the poor reader (me) has to download it themselves. In the same vein, can Source 1 be a link to the actual entry, rather than to the database? Otherwise it takes a lot of searching.


 * Manual of Style (Crit. 1B) - re. MoS, I think the preferred heading for images is Gallery, rather than Photos. And I think the Other section would be better worked into the main Description section. The conclusion of this section also leaves the reader hanging; "may have had an effect on the chosen routing." Did it or didn't it, and what's the source that covers this?


 * Well written (Crit. 1) - I think the prose could do with a polish pre-GA. There is quite a lot of duplication of phrasing, e.g. "..I-house built of brick laid in Flemish bond, built upon a stone and coursed rubble foundation" / "The kitchen, in the east room of the ell, in 1986, was deemed modern. The house was deemed significant for"; / "aged structures in the farm complex. These other structures include a large barn, which may be a tobacco barn, a shed, and a smaller barn. Some new structure.." I also think a bit more context/explanation would help the reader, e.g. what is "Settlement vernacular" as a style? A link to Vernacular architecture would also help. As an aside, is a dado rail more commonly termed a chair rail in the US? If so, fine, but dado is much the preferred term in the UK. Still on prose, what's going on with "the documentation show a backyard type appurtenance, a large propane tank" - assuming it is a propane tank, what is the "backyard type appurtenance" phrase adding, beyond superfluous words? And I think "contributing/non-contributing" needs explanation in this context, i.e. those significant elements which form part of the listing and are the reason for it, and those which don't and aren't.


 * Criterion 4/5/6 - For me, you'd meet those, although some of the images are a little dark.

I hope these comments are of some assistance. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)