Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Western New York (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Western New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! Vicenarian (T · C) 19:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews[edit]

No comments prior to review. Vicenarian (T · C) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GA REVIEW - Pass[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg

Great article. Compliance with MoS (see note below). One main source, but it is the full NRHP application, which is typical for an NRHP site. Also uses the NRIS. Both reliable. Sources used well, and cited throughout. No original research. Broad in coverage, concise and detailed, but not overly so. Neutral in tone. Stable. Well-illustrated.

I made several prose edits at points I thought needed clarification or simplification - but since I'm not as well versed in the location as you, Tony, if I've significantly alterted the meaning of the text, feel free to revert without mercy. Some of the language just seemed a bit tangled.

Great work!

Vicenarian (T · C) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Post-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews[edit]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I find that this article fails several GA criteria. In general, don't believe the writing quality meets the standard of criterion 1. It specifically fails criterion 1b because much of the content in the lead section is not present anywhere else in the article. It fails criterion 2c, because the statement "There is no visible base and as of 2009, vertical alignment has been lost and the general condition is poor" is original research -- as no cited source is nearly as recent as 2009. It fails criteria 3a and 3b in that (a) it fails to effectively address the main aspects of the topic in that it tells me almost nothing about the context that gives this subdivision entranceway historic interest (for example, the name of the subdivision isn't even mentioned until late in the article, and then only in passing) and (b) it goes into extensive unnecessary detail about the construction specifications of the entranceway, even while providing almost no information about the first wave of suburban development that created the subdivision it was built to promote. I've not yet been able to access the principal cited source, but I suspect (based mostly on writing style) that some of the language in the article may be closely paraphrased from the source. --Orlady (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do these work link WP:GACs where I have 7 days to get to these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the first time I've done a GA Reassessment, so I'm not well versed in the protocol, nor am I interested in enforcing arbitrary deadlines. My main concern is that the article doesn't appear to me to have the attributes that a Good Article is supposed to have. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
My only home internet right now is via a 2012 Google Chromebook that I just discovered does not support the plugins of the primary sources. Both my 2010 and 2013 HP laptops that I prefer to edit on are out for repair. I am suppose to talk to HP in the morning about my 2013 machine.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I just installed the proper version of Java on my primary computer to see the reference.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Below is my rearranged set of issues to address from above:
    • In general, don't believe the writing quality meets the standard of criterion 1. It specifically fails criterion 1b because much of the content in the lead section is not present anywhere else in the article.
    • It fails criterion 2c, because the statement "There is no visible base and as of 2009, vertical alignment has been lost and the general condition is poor" is original research -- as no cited source is nearly as recent as 2009.
      • You are reading the citation incorrectly. The citation was dated 2005 and dated as retrieved in 2009. This is from page 3 of the 2009 2005 report. I have added quotes to the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I've re-checked the article and I've accessed the cited source (which I wasn't able to get at the time when I started this GA reassessment), and I've verified that you are the one who is reading this incorrectly. The citation correctly gives the date of the source as 2005. You have revised the article to quote the source as saying, on page 3, "There is no visible base and as of 2009, vertical alignment has been lost and the general condition is poor". That is not a valid quotation of the source. Not only was it written in 2005 (not 2009), but page 3 doesn't contain any "as of" date, and the other wording that you present as a quotation is slightly modified from the source. Additionally, if this were a valid quotation from the source, it would not be an appropriate quotation for Wikipedia to include because there's little or nothing in this quotation that could not be as effectively presented with original wording. Finally, this is an example of some content that may include unnecessary detail. --Orlady (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It fails criteria 3a in that it fails to effectively address the main aspects of the topic in that it tells me almost nothing about the context that gives this subdivision entranceway historic interest (for example, the name of the subdivision isn't even mentioned until late in the article, and then only in passing)
      • Let me give a little personal flavor here. If you look at the map in this article you will see that there are three pairs of entranceway architectural structures in Snyder, New York on the National Register of Historic Places. The other structures that went on the NHRP on the same date are Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive. Two of these structures were on my paper route when I was a young lass in the early 1980s. My route was between Main Street and Harper Road (exclusive). Thus, I covered all of Livingston Parkway, all of Rankin Road, part of Smallwood Drive north of Harper and the north side of Main street surrounding these entranceways, which at the time was two houses on both sides of the entranceways. IMO, these are not monumental structures in the sense that they don't serve as a monument to any notable development. They are more of a thematic historic place. No one from Snyder talks about historic developments beyond these entranceways. The application notes that these are "surviving examples of early twentieth-century Tudor Revival-Style suburban residential subdivision" and later notes that they are part of a "thematic grouping of entranceways and street furniture, including stone walls..." I.e., even the application only names the particular development in passing later. We are infact only summarizing the source correctly. On top of that, we are representing them as they are known to the locals (of which I am one). Honestly, the Roycroft entranceways are not part of my life history, but the library diagonally across the street from them is. It was my local library. Once upon a time, a kid had to go to a physical building to do research after school on some occasions. You may or may not be old enough to remember such days. My most notable moment at the Library was when another local kid told me Bucky Dent homered for the Yankees against the Red Sox as we were standing in that Library's parking lot. That is neither here nor there, but the article summarizes the sources and is probably agreeable in its depiction to most locals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
        • FWIW, I am aware of those other entranceways. In fact, I also started a GA review at Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2 (I notified you on your talk page). One thing I wondered about (but didn't mention in either GA review, until now) is whether it truly makes sense for Wikipedia to have two separate articles about entranceway structures in Snyder. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
          • WP should treat separate NRHPs separately. If they wanted to make a historic district they could have done so (Darwin Drive has similar stone entranceways).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Sorry, but I don't accept your theory that individual listing on the National Register indicates independent notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Although not all of the properties in a National Register historic district need to be contributing properties, there needs to be some degree of continuity and connectedness to make a district. Lack of sufficient contiguity to constitute a single historical district does not indicate lack of sufficient relatedness to constitute a single encyclopedic topic. --Orlady (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
              • O.K. even if the Darwin Drive Entranceways were also on the NRHP separately, I would argue that each entranceway be its own article. I have never seen merged NRHP articles even for geographically proximal properties.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
            • As for your personal connection to these entranceways, it's a charming story. However, we need to remember that the aspects of these entranceways that meant something to you as a child are not necessarily the same aspects that would mean something to an encyclopedia reader who didn't grow up in the neighborhood. Although I am a good bit older than you, I am not too old to remember the various places I liked to go as a child, and I know that the features of those places I considered important/memorable are not necessarily important/memorable from an adult perspective or in the context of history. In that vein, I happen to believe that the historical context of the suburban expansion that these entranceways promoted is far more important to encyclopedia readers than their proximity to your childhood library. --Orlady (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Well I guess we are fortunate that I did not map out my paper route in the order I attended to the houses of this neighborhood (just kidding). This article is not written from my recollection. I am writing about what I am finding in sources for the most part.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It fails criteria 3b in that it goes into extensive unnecessary detail about the construction specifications of the entranceway, even while providing almost no information about the first wave of suburban development that created the subdivision it was built to promote.
    • I've not yet been able to access the principal cited source, but I suspect (based mostly on writing style) that some of the language in the article may be closely paraphrased from the source.
      • I am not sure where the burden falls here. Do you have any content that you suspect as a copyright violation?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
        • As long as you are breaking my comments into bullets, don't forget criterion 3b regarding unnecessary detail.
        • As for close paraphrasing, now that I have a copy of your main source document, I see close paraphrasing in several places, including the passages "the entranceway's featured element is the nearly semi-circular random ashlar stone half-walls on Roycroft Boulevard's axis of symmetry, which is at a 22 degree angle to Main Street" and "the running portion of the wall has a continuous cast in place coping cap shaped at a 45 degree angle, which forms an attached buttress three quarters the height of the posts" (both from paragraph 2 on page 3 of the source). Other examples include "County engineer, George C. Diehl, was also associated with the development of this subdivision" and "original function of marking the vehicular and pedestrian entrance to the subdivision", which closely follow language in the last two paragraphs on page 3 of the source. --Orlady (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
            • I viewed this earlier at the airport while waiting for my flight. I think I was confused. I was looking for page 3 from the document that you mention below. Now, I realize you are still talking about the article I was using all along.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I would appreciate assistance paraphrasing architectural details that you are uncomfortable with (para 2 page 3).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have found the National Register document that provides the historical context that makes these entranceways historically significant. See http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/64500937.pdf . Among other things, that document tells about the country estates that were converted to residential subdivisions. Because the entranceways were built as marketing tools for the subdivisions, I think that the history of suburban subdivision development is a critically important part of the story to be told in these articles. --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I am unable to view this document. How does it differ from the one above from the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
      • It's odd that you can't view that document. It's a normal PDF -- no need to deal with Java -- and it's only about 1 MB. Anyway, it's a National Register multiple property submission form entitled "Multiple Resources Associated with the Suburban Development of Buffalo, New York." It's a 28-page document that documents the history and significance of a collection of properties that ended up being individually listed on the National Register. The nomination forms that you used for these articles were abbreviated, compared with typical NRHP nominations, because much of the normal documentation was supplied in the multiple property submission. --Orlady (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you comment on my progress thus far.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)