Jump to content

Talk:Camak House/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Is it "The Camak House" or "Camak House"? The article needs to be consistent.
  • "... including an attached kitchen and closets". Are we being coy here? What's a closet?
No coyness intended. Closet is a very common term (well, the term) used here for something generally smaller than a room where one stores items such as clothing. Is this a British/American English issue? LadyofShalott 21:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be. But it was the conjunction of "attached kitchens" and "closets", which made it it seem like the closets were also attached, which in turn made me wonder if "closet" was a euphemism for privvy. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. (I didn't know what you had in mind there!) Maybe I need to do some rephrasing to avoid that association. LadyofShalott 21:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could say "closets and an attached kitchen", which would avoid the potentially misleading association. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its restoration for use as law offices has been characterized by Elizabeth Dalton of the Athens-Clarke Heritage Foundation as "an excellent example of adaptive use". I'm not fond of just repeating the same thing twice in the article, rather than summarising in the lead.
  • The lead needs to be expanded to better summarise the article. A good rule of thumb is to extract the key points from each section, but I see nothing about the house's interior for instance, or that it's now on the National Register of Historic Places.
I'll work on fixing these two points. LadyofShalott 21:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the part of the lead having to do with the restoration. I've expanded the lead. Deciding what to include and what to exclude is tough for me. I don't know if I've done it justice yet or not. LadyofShalott 00:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both floors have four rooms ..." The photograph seems to suggest that the building had three floors, whereas "both" implies two.
Clarified - two main floors, but a raised basement. LadyofShalott 00:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture and earlier history
  • Earlier history than what? Why not "Architecture and early history"?
Corrected. LadyofShalott 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Built atop a hill, Camak House was the first house built in the Prince Avenue area, its acreage originally fronting on Prince; Meigs Street was a later incursion into the land." I'm not really following that, and the punctuation isn't helping. How does an acreage "front" anywhere? What does "fronting on Prince" mean? What land did Meigs Street make an incursion into? And what does "incursion" mean in this context?
Rephrased. Better? LadyofShalott 23:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interior and exterior details have been praised." By whom?
I've deleted this line for now at least. I might add back something more concrete if I can can figure out a good way to do so, but I don't have the reference material in front of me right now to do it. LadyofShalott 22:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Camak House served as the location for a meeting to charter ...". It didn't serve as the location, it was the location. And why The Camak House?
Fixed to be consistent with Camak House (except one "the Camak House", but that's in a quote). LadyofShalott 23:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The basement originally contained slave quarters and the kitchen". How do we reconcile this with the statement in the lead, that the kitchen was "attached"?
Rephrased in the lead. LadyofShalott 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finer details include silver-plated doorknobs". Finer details than what?
Dropped "finer" (that came from the source, but I agree it's not really needed). LadyofShalott 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five generations of Camaks remained in the house until 1947." It must surely have been rather smelly by then, with all those dead bodies around.
Changed remained to lived. (Hah! I had not thought through the implications of remained.) LadyofShalott 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1949, it was purchased to serve as the Mount Vernon Lodge No. 22, F. & A. M (Masonic lodge); thence in 1979 by the Athens Coca-Cola Bottling Company." "Thence" isn't the right word.
Oh, I didn't see this comment before, but Drmies said something about the same thing, and I've changed it. LadyofShalott 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Camak House was the location for a meeting to charter what became "the first successful railroad company in Georgia and only the third such company in the United States". What does "charter" mean here? To grant a charter? Who was doing the granting?
Well, some sources said "to charter" and some "to accept the charter" (from the State of Georgia? I'm not clear on that). I dropped charter and put in organize - that much seems clear. LadyofShalott 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration and current use
  • "... he planned to renovate to Camak House for administrative offices".
Is this just the missing "to" you already added? LadyofShalott 23:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Fixed. (I think I must have just inverted the words before, then I saw you had added "to" where it did need to be. LadyofShalott 00:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 1993 partnership between the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation and the law firm of Winburn, Lewis and Barrow rescued the Camak House from Coca-Cola Enterprises". If that's not trying to make a point then I don't know what is, needs to be toned down. And once again, why "the Camak House"?
Totally rephrased... I think it should be neutral now. (As I said above, I dropped the use of "the".) LadyofShalott 23:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Camak House is currently owned by the law firm of Lewis, Frierson and Grayson, LLP." When is "currently"? As of 2011?
Yes, and now that's what it says. :) LadyofShalott 23:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The house's restoration for use as law offices has been characterized by Elizabeth Dalton of the Athens-Clarke Heritage Foundation ..". "Characterized isn't the right word; "described"?
  • "... when the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation and the law firm of Winburn, Lewis and Barrow formed a partnership for the purchase of Camak House from Coca-Cola Enterprises (the post-merger successor in ownership)". Rather awkward. Why not "to purchase"?
  • "The trust purchased the property, added protective covenants, and resold it to the law firm ...". It couldn't have resold it as it had never sold it before.
I think I've got the partnership and purchase and subsequent sale parts sorted. I haven't yet figured out what to do about the parenthetical remark yet. LadyofShalott 00:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've changed it around a bit. I'm not sure if that has made it any better or not, but see what you think. LadyofShalott 14:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camak_House/GA1&oldid=1073000015"