Talk:Chestertown Armory/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Guerillero (talk · contribs) 19:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First look

Lead

? Consider changing "After the 115th Infantry Regiment" to "When the"

? Consider changing "to Washington College in 2013. Since then, it has stood vacant" to "to Washington College in 2013; since then, it has stood vacant"

@Guerillero: Hoping to wrap this up soon. Are you against these two suggestions?

The ping never went through and work has been crazy. Let me try to knock this out this weekend. Both of these seem reasonable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: The article has not been edited since May 5. I am hoping to complete the review. Bruxton (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

? Since we are describing a building we should probably use more details from citations 2 (there is more info about the building in there). Maybe other sources which describe the building or design?

? I might also consider changing the name of the section to design and consider moving the section below the planning section so that it is chronological.

I was following the general format of recent FAs such as Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Do we know who the architecture or designer was? Looks like Carl is not the the architect? It looks like from the source he was the general contractor/builder - maybe that too should be spelled out in the article.

A name has appeared in the local paper in editorials starting in 2022, but I can't find it in contemporaneous sources or in the reporting part of the paper --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? This sentence should be rewritten "After a year, due to trouble securing plans, Maryland awarded contract to erect the building Carl Schmidt", It is missing words. Also I think we need more context about the "trouble". I also do not like the use of "due to".

"Owning to delay in securing plans" is all the Wilmington Journal says --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planning and construction

? You could Consider US$$50,000 at first occurrence. Note that is not required by MOS:$ but I generally do it.

No. The article makes it clear that the subject is within the United States --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Consider whether this section can be developed into more than the three sentence with other sources.

I will dig some more, but 1930s newspapers are the best sources we have and they don't say much --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Guard use

? Consider 3,700 square foot should be hyphenated - but better than that would be a conversion template: 3,700 sq ft (340 m²)

Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer and Washington College ownership

? In this sentence "In 2013, the Chestertown Armory was transferred to Washington College.[19] The structure continues to sit vacant." - there is no setup for when or how the building was first left vacant. Consider adding the information.

? Consider rewriting "studies of the building showing extensive mold in the building that would make remediation unfeasible." to "studies of the building revealed extensive mold in the building that would make remediation unfeasible."

? Consider a hyphen for "25-day"

These also need to be addressed. Bruxton (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Units

? This section is not cited. I think we need a citation here.

I think it is just a rehash of the national guard section --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Can you add a citation here, I think it is needed Bruxton (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Two images in the article and both appear to be properly licensed and free.

captions are short, descriptive and appropriate

Copyright

Earwig does not alert to plagiarism.

Citation 2 checks out

Citation 5 checks out

Citation 11 checks out

Citation 13 is offline AGF

Citation 18 checks out

? Please see that all of the relevant details have beenWP:MINEd from the sources in the RS.

Review table

Status: Reviewing...

33% reviewed

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
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.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.