Template:Did you know nominations/General John Frelinghuysen House

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

General John Frelinghuysen House

(

)

... ~~that the General John Frelinghuysen House (pictured) is an excellent example of early 19th century Federal architecture in Raritan, New Jersey?~~

Reviewed: Virginia Mae Brown

Created by Zeete (talk). Self nominated at 17:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC).

Article The expansion to the required size was actually over 7 days rather than 5 but it is our policy that we are not a bureaucracy so I'm inclined to let that pass. It is now long enough at 1913 chars by my count. The article seems sound so far as policy is concerned.

Hook is short enough at 165 chars but seems too dull. The NHRP nomination which supports the hook contains the following remarkable statement, "President Warren G. Harding signed the Knox-Porter Resolution which officially ended World War I by proclaiming peace between the United States and Germany, (1921) in this house". That would be a much better hook.

Image and QPQ seem fine.

Andrew Davidson (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought the DYK process started the day you moved it to the main article space, i.e. today.
I agree the hook is somewhat dull, but accurate. The NRHP nomination has the statement about the Knox-Porter Resolution, but it is incorrect. It is scratched out with a "see letter attached". The bill was signed at a different house, although also owned by a Frelinghuysen family member. See my edits to those articles, and my Commons images.
Thanks, Zeete (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the article had been moved into mainspace from userspace and so there's no problem with the timing - mea culpa. It's a shame about the Knox-Porter Resolution and it sounds like you know best there too. I added a section about the signing and that will need reverting now. I was somewhat dubious about the NRHP nomination as it seemed to be a primary source. If it contains gross errors like this, which require careful interpretation, then we require a better source for the article to back up the hook, please. Andrew Davidson (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Should I revert your changes?
The NRHP does have the bill signing crossed out. The details about the Federal architecture seem correct from everything else I've found.
Thanks, Zeete (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted my addition myself. I saw the crossing out in the NHRP source but it seemed quite faint and unclear and I'm not seeing the attached letter. I'm not sure how reliable NHRP nominations are considered in general and would like a second opinion as to whether we should accept such a source as an authority on the excellence of the house's architecture. Can we have another reviewer please? Andrew Davidson (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

With occasional exceptions, successful National Register nominations are reliable, since they're reviewed by historic preservation professionals and approved by government officials. Errors such as the resolution appear sometimes, and of course they shouldn't be trusted when we have sources disagreeing with them like that, but they're not primary sources and should be trusted when we don't have reason to doubt them; bits unrelated to the Knox-Porter Resolution should still be trusted in this one. That all being said, we really need a better hook: thousands of NR-listed buildings get that status because of their excellent architecture, and large percentages of early 19th-century buildings are Federal-style; there's nothing particularly hooky in this hook. Perhaps you could concentrate on its place in this town, e.g. as the library or the former town hall, or as both of them? Meanwhile, note that the article is slightly too short, at 1459 characters by my count. Please expand it, and please remember that this shortness does not affect the article's qualification on date-of-nomination grounds. Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will work on expanding the article and writing a better hook. I like the idea of including the library. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that the General John Frelinghuysen House (pictured), originally a c. 1756 tavern and town hall, is now the public library in Raritan, New Jersey?

Updated article and hook. Zeete (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the expansion. Unfortunately, I fear that I've uncovered several crucial problems. First off, you're definitely doing close paraphrasing in the third paragraph of "History"; this is unacceptable, largely because close paraphrasing is copyright infringement. You can resolve this by writing everything in your own words. Much more difficult to resolve is the issue of the house's identity: after reading the article, I expected to find agreement among the sources that the present structure is the same as the tavern, but I'm finding quite differently: among other things, Snell says that the Frelinghuysens didn't even live on the same property. Unless I'm badly misunderstanding what's going on, the current article conflates the histories of two separate buildings; including the history of another building is good and helpful if relevant, but you have to present it as the history of another building, and it has to be relevant, which I'm not sure this would be here. Finally, one other thing: please add page numbers to the National Register nomination citation. Since the document has more than two pages, {{Page needed}} is applicable, especially since searching the whole document for each fact makes the cite-checking a good deal more difficult. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've revised the history section and added another reference that I hope clarifies the ownership. I found Snell very hard to parse. Could you point out the page number where he said they did not live on the same property? I think I've addressed the paraphrasing and page number issues. Thanks again for your feedback. Zeete (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

See 656. We've got the bit about all the meetings being held in the house/tavern, and then we read that Cornelius Tunison "lived north of him in the house afterward owned by John Frelinghuysen". As I read it, the Frelinghuysen house was north of the house/tavern/town hall, so they're not the same place. This is reinforced by date discrepancies; the NR nomination (page 3) calls into question the idea of the house being built before 1778, depending heavily on the HABS statement (page 4) of an 1810 construction date and saying that it was built by Frelinghuysen himself; note that NRIS gives an 1805 construction date, as well. If I'm understanding the situation rightly, the only possible way for this to be the 18th-century tavern is if the frame wing be the original house, to which the brick chunk was later appended. Such a situation would be really unusual and something that really should be mentioned in the nomination; its omission is a strong signal that this wasn't the case. This being said Did I perhaps overlook something? I'll be happy to learn that I'm wrong. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

On page 656, Snell does not specify which Cornelius. I read it as Cornelius Bogert lived north of Cornelius Tunison and Cornelius Bogert lived in the house afterwards owned by John Frelinghuysen. This is confirmed on page 662: "and another by Cornelius Bogert, and later by John Arrison, in a house which now forms a part of the Frelinghuysen homestead". These are refs 6 and 7. And ref 8 also agrees with this. Also page 655 describes more about Cornelius Tunison's tavern and the town hall timeline. I did not use the NR nomination for the dates, since as you noted, there is no consistent timeline. I read the nomination as describing the newer brick section, not the older wooden frame section. I could not find the HABS original. I could not confirm the NRIS 1805 date on page 5, so I used "after the 1801 purchase date" rather than "after the death of his father in 1804". Ref 8 has John Frelinghuysen building the newer brick section. I did not think this time sequence, older wood, newer brick, was unusual. I believe I have the basic outline correct from the Snell source. What do you think? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Just found HABS (from 1937?), Snell is in the bibliography. Only describes the brick section. No dates. "There is also a possiblity that General John Frelinghuysen erected it, and that seems to be very likely." FYI, Zeete (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying quickly, and I apologise that I didn't re-reply quickly at all. 662 definitely demonstrates that I misinterpreted 656. I'm familiar with early construction topics between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi, but largely ignorant of construction issues east of the Alleghenies; perhaps this contributed to my confusion. I see no more reason to hold up this nomination. Thank you for persevering with it! Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)