Talk:Old Jeffersonville Historic District/GA1

GA Review

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

1. It is well written Please address the following issues:

   The lead:

   • I admit I'm a bit... unsure of the bulleted list in the lead. Per this section of the MOS, with a little bit of word wrangling, it could probably be transformed into a good paragraph.
   • What is a Modjelskas? Is that a type of red hot candy?
   • I think it would be clearer to say the Steamboat Days Festival (any reason that's in italics?) "used to be held" on Spring Street, instead of "would be held". I copy edited some tense issues.

   History

   • I think it would read better if this section began with The first settlement in what became Jeffersonville, and combining the first paragraph with the third.
   • Can you give a span of years to illustrate when Jeffersonville's heyday was?
   • I tried to copy edit this, but I wasn't sure what it was saying: as three railroads connected to Jeffersonville and because it had the Ohio River at a safer location than Louisville, to which the Ohio River was at its rear
   • I suggest going through and looking at your links per WP:Overlinking: United States President, United States, and terms that are not linked: Union Army, Italianate, Gothic revival, American Four Square, bungalows, and shotguns. All architecture terms should be linked at first instance.

   Streets

   • The paragraph that begins The next street to the north is rather formulaic. All the sentences after the first begin the same way. The next paragraph does this too.
   • These buildings and the way they were structured must reflect the economic makeup of the town when these structures were built. Why is there a section of shotgun houses next to a row of bungalows? Who lived in them? What did it say about their financial status? I assume this was made an historical landmark because it is important to the town's or area's history. But that is not expressed in the article. I understand it's a small town, but I think it's doing a disservice to the article not to say why this area is important.
2. It is broad in its coverage.

   My concern is with the lack of unique sources. The first link does not work. The next two are bare lists. And the bulk of the cited material comes from the NRHP nomination form. While this is an excellent source, there must be something more that is able to give some kind of history for the Jeffersonville, Indiana, and why this section of town is significant.

3. It is neutral

   No problems with neutrality.

4. It is stable

   No edit wars or recent reverts.

5. It is illustrated, where possible, by images
   • Nice images. The placement of Image:Warder Park.jpg is hinky on my browser. Can you place it higher, possibly shifting the image before it up?

The article will be placed on hold for seven days awaiting clarification and improvement. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

All problems should be corrected now.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I apologize for not coming back to this. I was sick for a week, off wiki, and I...embarrassingly forgot about it. However, I've stricken some of the issues above. Have some others.

• Thanks for addressing my point about the connection between architecture and reflection of the people who lived in the types of homes. However, this sentence: These reflect how close the working class chose to live near their jobs; wealthier individuals chose Federal or Greek Revival homes makes it seem as if choice was the only factor in where an individual lived. If that's the case, would the folks who chose shotgun houses lack some taste? More likely, they lacked money to purchase a Federal or Greek Revival home. This statement is cited and I can't image the author would say this. Can you clear this up?
• I still find the sentence structure formulaic in the Streets section. Too many sentences start with "The xxx block..." It reads like a list and is not very engaging.
• Clearly, I've extended the 7 days. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

All things should be rectified now.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 19:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The section in question was changed to These reflect the different preferences of the working class; wealthier individuals of the era instead chose Federal or Greek Revival homes. How does this change the nature of what I objected to in my comments above? Though the wording is different you have a cited statement to say that the working class chose to live in shotgun houses, and the wealthier people chose Federal or Greek Revival homes. This is a logical fallacy, and now I'm curious to know what your source says about it. Can you provide the material you used? I'm curious to know what Carl Kramer has to say about this. Otherwise, I did some copyediting, and noticed someone else chipped in as well. --Moni3 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, I just removed it. Now is it OK?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again. Although I think accurate information about the connection between the layout of the historic district to the economic makeup of the town would be valuable and complete the article quite nicely, it does not seem this information is readily available. I asked for it to ensure the article is the best it could be, and think it's unfortunate if you were inconvenienced by the request. However, the article is informative and with the changes, reads nicely. So I am passing the article as GA. Congratulations. --Moni3 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)