Talk:Bartow–Pell Mansion/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Good work Epicgenius Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 01:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CosXZ (talk · contribs) 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Image and source review

All images are good CosXZ (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All references are styled well CosXZ (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using a random number generator between 1-182 for a source check, will be checking 13 sources CosXZ (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[78] Y

[168] Y A classic source

[58] Y Official government division

[6] Y Couldn't access but, at that time of publication, the New York Herald Tribune had a very good reputation

[166] Y A classic source

[25] N ~~I am not sure about this source even if is isn't a SPS~~ per RoySmith below
Twomey was a borough historian who wrote several books about the Bronx. Epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Feel way more comfortable calling this source a reliable source CosXZ (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)~~ [reply]
I've always been cautious of using Twomey's books as RS. Yes, he wrote a lot about Bronx history, but it's mostly WP:SPS. His books are published by Arcadia Publishing, which may not be strictly a Vanity press, but pretty close to it. I don't see anything on their website that makes me think they provide anything in the way of editorial oversight or fact checking. Twomey is clearly more reliable than some rando blogger, but I'm still hesitant to use his stuff once we're talking GA level. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've removed his book from the article, since it's redundant to other sources, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[23] Y Isn't a SPS which is good and the author has a street named after him so, that means he has done good works

[182] Y A classic source

[163] Y A classic source

[118] Y Good author

[27] Y ~~I don't trust a newspaper that published a Hoax~~
The hoax was published 80 years before the newspaper article in question was published. I will remove it if there's further evidence that the Sun consistently published hoaxes even through the 20th century. However, in general, newspapers from the early 19th century were less accurate than today, and they occasionally published embellished or false articles to drum up attention. Epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay CosXZ (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think The Sun has redeemed itself CosXZ (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[147] Y Official government division

[61] Y I looked up Lockwood Barr and the search results showed a singer not a historian
According to this blog (which I am not using as a source), he wrote about Pelham's history in the mid-20th century. Epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I feel great callin' this a reliable source CosXZ (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overal this passes 2B CosXZ (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig

Earwig Shows 18.7% CosXZ (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion

@Epicgenius: I am requesting for 2nd opinion for the rest of the criteria. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 04:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CosXZ I may be able to help, but it's not clear what specifically you're asking for a 2O on. RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1A, 1B, 2C, 3A, 3B, and 4 of the criteria. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 23:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a lot for a 2O, but I'm happy to pitch in as I can.

1A: The prose meets the WP:GACR of "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". If this eventually finds its way to WP:FAC, however, I'd prefer to see a more flowing style adopted in order to meet the WP:FACR of being "engaging". There's a lot of runs of short simple declarative sentences such as Orchard Beach is across the lagoon. A hiking path called the Siwanoy Trail loops around the estate. The nearest New York City Subway station is the Pelham Bay Park station, located across the Hutchinson River. Bee-Line Bus's 45 route also stops outside the estate. This would read better with more varied sentence structure.
- When the house was renovated by the IGC in 1915, the right or south wing of the house contained an "orangery" for serving tea. Does that mean the orangery was there when the renovation was started, or that it was added during the renovation?
- The infobox says "Shore Road North", why the "North"?
1B: Manual of style, no problems.
2C: Original research, no problems.
3A: Addresses the main aspects, no problems.
3B: Stays focused, no problems.
4: Neutral, no problems.

OK, back to you @CosXZ RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @RoySmith for helpin' with the review Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]