Talk:Mathew H. Ritchey House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 21:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Hog Farm, I saw an uptick in new articles in the Art and architecture section, so here I am with a follow-up to First Battle of Newtonia Historic District. Again, my approach is to review each section, make minor edits as I go along (links, punctuation, etc.) to save us both time and effort, and then assess the article against GA criteria. Feel free to revert edits that I make if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

There is no need for quotes around the names, so I removed the quotes around Mansion House.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "It rests on a sandstone block foundation and side gable roof." since the house doesn't sit on the roof (fun image in my mind, though). I made the edit to "and has a side-gabled roof."
Perhaps "The site saw fighting during both the First and Second Battles of Newtonia, and saw use as a hospital after the battles." could be reworded to something like, During the Civil War, the site saw fighting during both the First and Second Battles of Newtonia, which required its use as a hospital after the battles.
- Done
When saying "is included in the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District." does this mean it is a contributing property? mentioned in the FBNHD nomination form?
- Done

The section looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will likely come back to this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the lead's probably a bit clunky. This was a stub before I expanded it, and the stub basically became the lead, which wasn't the best approach.

I forgot about this. I will check to see if there's more info that can go there - without overloading it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again and there's nothing particularly notable for the intro. I think it's good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

I wonder if this section should follow the History section. It seems the architecture will make more sense with the historical info. What do you think?
- Done. Moved it to History-Architecture-NHRP. If that looks weird to you, I can try History-NHRP-Architecture

That looks really nice! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "also known as" part of the first sentence in the Architecture section, because it is already noted in the Introduction.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Is opening needed in "which is accessed by a door opening from the second story."?
- Changed to "which is accessed by a second-story door"

I like it!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of minor edits here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section is

Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

It might be nice to have a subsection for the names of the house. It looks like the Mathew H. Ritchey House and Belle Starr House names are explained in history, but not Mansion House. Or, maybe just add a bit about why it was called Mansion House.
- I'm honestly not sure exactly why it got that name. The names appears on the NHRP nomination form (in quotation marks for some obscure reason), without any real explanation. The source does state "M.H. Ritchey's home was truly a mansion for those frontier times.", but to state that that was the reason it got that name when the source doesn't state that is a little OR-y. I can add that quote and let the reader draw any conclusions, I guess.
  - UPDATE: Added "The home was been described as "truly a mansion for those frontier times."[4]" to the article.

I think that's good. It does look like it was locally called Mansion House as well as Ritchey Mansion. And, it looks like it's also called "mansion house". I think your answer is the right approach.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor edit "founding on"--> "founding of"
- Thanks
Regarding "These bloodstains are believed to be the reason the woodwork in one of the home's rooms was later painted black, reports from the time of the battle suggest that the house was damaged during the fighting.[2]" It seems that the first part of the sentence relates to bloodstains from the prior sentence. And reports of damage could be something else - being hit by artillery or other damage due to the battle itself. Is that right?
- Clarified

Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a general comment for the article: I am not a big fan of "would be" for something that happened in the past. So, I would reword its usage in the article. It's not a big enough of a deal, though, if it is important to you. I am beginning to realize that some editors like "would be" as a stylistic vehicle.
- Changed both instances, was worked better in both places

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "The house has undergone several changes since the 1860s, although the building did remain in the Ritchey family until 1948." - "and" works just as well as although... and although makes me question as a reader: why was "although" used? (why would the number of changes have anything to do with whether it stayed in the family or not?)
- "The house has undergone several changes since the 1860s and remained in the Ritchey family until 1948." - Changed to that. Kills two birds with one stone: the weird use of although and this version is more concise.

Excellent!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "The upper story above the kitchen was added in the 1880s, and the staircase in the kitchen was added at the same time." could be rephrased to something like The upper story, accessed from a staircase in the kitchen, was added in the 1880s Or, was added above the kitchen...–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

This section looks great and is Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places

Perhaps the 2nd part of the 2nd sentence could be reworded from "the Ritchey family cemetery, and another cemetery where the slaves owned by the Ritchey family are buried." to something like and two cemeteries, one for the Ritchey family cemetery and another for the slaves owned by the family.
- Done
It seems like a natural paragraph break starting with "In 2004, the First Battle of Newtonia Historic District..." what do you think? (My brain did a "bump the breaks" (in the Geico lizard voice) "new topic" - but that's me.)
- Done
I wonder if it would be better to put the last two sentences in this section (about the necessary repairs) at the bottom of the History section. Just a thought.
- Moved
Another "just a thought" - would it be better to make this an 2nd level section since there are only two other topic sections... and it's really an issue unto itself?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking that maybe it would be best as three level 2 headings; with an order of History, Architecture, NHRP. How does that sound?

I like it! It looks good!

This section is Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

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. 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

The article passes GA criteria 1 through 5. The copyvio report hits were just titles, names, or common expressions.
There are no images in the article.
The article is not particularly long for a GA article, but it's part of a series of related articles about the Civil War battles and the historic district. Overall, it's looking pretty good. There are some suggestions above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: - Thanks for reviewing this one. I've replied to all points so far, I believe although I honestly don't have a great answer for the Mansion House one. Hog Farm (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been puttering around with little walks with my dog, visiting neighbors, talking on the phone, etc. -- so it's taken me awhile to get through this.

I added a link to an image of the house. If you think it's inappropriate as it is a private house, please remove it.

I think it's looking good! I answered the Mansion House above. Thanks for your work on the article - and your flexibility. Much appreciated!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]