Talk:Henderson Hall Historic District/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. This looks like a big one - sorry you've been waiting a while! Ganesha811 (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, this passes GA - congrats to you and anyone else who worked on the article. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I've gone through and made some prose tweaks, since it's easier than laying them all out as tasks for you. Let me know if there are any you dislike. The only other prose issue is the 21/29 room discrepancy. The sources are definitely in disagreement, and I assume the difference lays in what is counted as part of "Henderson Hall." Can we come up with any reason to pick one number over another? I don't like the idea of leaving it ambiguous, such as it is at present. If the discrepancy can't be resolved, I would recommend we just leave out the number of rooms in the article. I can't really reconcile these two, so I've just removed the room count. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Sounds good - pass on prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No uncited passages or information that I can find. Given the importance of the Collins source to the article, let's archive it (archive.org) and add the link to the citation under 'Sources.' Otherwise I fear linkrot will eat this one up within a few years. Would be good to do the same for the Kenny, Oxford Pres, and White sources too, but less important as those are to more stable links. I've archived Collins. I don't think we usually archive Google books or Hathitrust links
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass - sources appear sufficiently reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Appears free of OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Some of the phrasing, especially in "History", comes uncomfortably close to the Collins source. "consolidated land claims", etc. Take another read through and see if you can adjust the text so it paraphrases the Collins source, not just rewriting sentences in a different way. It would also help if information from other sources was integrated throughout the section (Pohick), breaking up the Collins-sourced material. I've gone through and done some rephrasing. I've also moved the Pohick material into the main history section "Got the site listed" seems too close to "Got the plantation listed" - rephrase. Would also be good to give some context for what it takes to list a site, since the current phrasing almost implies you can do it on your own without input from the NPS. Rephrased Issues addressed - pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Based on sources and a quick search on Google and JSTOR, appears comprehensive.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no neutrality issues found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, all look good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The two images we have are fine - do we have any others of any other buildings in the District? Unfortunately, I haven't come across any free-use images other than what is in the article Fair enough, pass on images.
	7. Overall assessment.