Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA1

GA Review

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

a sentence in the first paragraph would be helpful for placing the significance of these in context; also, date of construction could be included. The location should be a separate sentence, Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive are a set of complementary residential subdivision stone entranceways built in ___ ; they are located in….
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
red link on lancet head arch
What is your point?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't go anywhere. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are saying there is a problem because the word is redlinked and you want the linkage removed. Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the weather vanes are two stories high??? That needs clarification.
How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the weather vane is two stories high? or it plus the entry building is two stories high? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what the confusion is with the rewording to say it is two stories above the street grade. This seems pretty unambiguous to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
significance of Christ the King church…is it also Tudor revival? (although has a Romanesque look to me).
I am not an architecture guy and do not know. The significance is that only three of the four corners for these entranceways have residential properties. The fourth is a church. How would you like this handled in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just say that then. Or at least make that clear. Otherwise, it's just sort of hanging there, that on one corner there is a church, and I wondered if that was significant.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
first link in citations doesn't work
If you are talking about the main reference for the article, I think it is browser sensitive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tried it in Firefox and IE--Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that one. It is a link that most NRHP listings have to a page where such listings can be searched. You can not link directly to the proper search result with this page. However, most readers of NRHP properties should be familiar with this page and the need to actually do the search from there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bus riders, preferable over “customers” ….?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References cited list.
As a National Register of Historic Places listing this has an application with a summary of many primary and secondary sources. I do not have access to any of these sources to create a reference list. Thus, the vast majority of the text comes from the NRHP application. I.E., what is in the notes section is all that I have to go by. However, the main source is an WP:RS AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
more on significance of these? The suburbanization of rural spaces in the 20s? Why was this placed on the register over others?
I have added another link to Snyder, New York in this section. The history of the development of this community is detailed there. I am not sure how much about the development is necessary here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good, link to Snyder is good. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if any of these suggestions makes sense (leave message on my talk page), and I'll come back and finish assessment.

--Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]