Talk:Alden Tavern Site

Alden Tavern Site has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 21, 2014. (Reviewed version).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Note check

As of this date, the record has not yet been digitized. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alden Tavern Site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 03:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:ChrisGualtieri, I think I reviewed another GAN of your recently, but then I thought, why not review another one? First I am going to upgrade the article to C-class, since obviously this shouldn't be a stub anymore. As on the other review page, I stated that typically I will quote a portion of the article and state the error or query.--12george1 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The tavern was originally built in 1738 and owned by Captain Alden. By 1850, it had passed to Alden's descendent, Mr. Wattles." - What was Captain Alden and Mr. Wattles first names? Might be useful, but wouldn't be the end of the world if you couldn't find the answer to that question.

Absolutely no idea, never could track it down. I could try and get more from the state... but it wasn't promising. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"but it was part of the town green by the 1903 publication of Brother Jonathan.[3]" - First, what is a "town green"? I have never heard that term. Second you may want to state the Brother Jonathan is a book

Village green - And okay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The organization of "Historical significance" is awkward. The first paragraph is unsourced, but a summary of the second paragraph. So it's a bit redundant. For example, you mentioned 3 times that General Prescott was horsewhipped. Isn't once enough?

Sorry, reduced and fixed.

Under the references, add the publication date for reference #3 and #11.

I do not know the true date ref 11 was published - but I did add the date for the meeting to the source.

Alright, I see what you did there. I assumed that the meeting date was the same as the publication date, but that's not always true. My city council doesn't usually post the meeting agenda or minutes on their website the same day.--12george1 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add accessdates for references #1, #3, #4, #6, and #7

Kinda confused here - the 3, 4, 6, and 7, are all books. They do not need accessdates I believe. The content does not change. I fixed the 1st one - which was dated, but it used a template which I had to go around. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now I'm not sure about the accessdates for books. They might tell you something different if you take this article to FAC, but for now, I am going to let it slide.--12george1 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In about a week, I will be back to check your progress. Otherwise, you can leave a note on my talk page if you finish sooner. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@12george1: - How's it looking now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: - I am now going this pass this article and list it as a GA. Congratulations on a job well done,--12george1 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is sad it became a parking lot, but it was long gone for over a hundred years. Still on the historic register though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alden Tavern Site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204052104/http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html to http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/All_Data.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]