Talk:Cushing House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hudson Valley (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hudson Valley, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Hudson Valley of 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 quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Architecture / Historic houses  (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Historic houses task force.

GA Review[edit]

Article Passed GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cushing House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs) 04:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I will be reviewing this article nomination for Good Article status. My initial review should be up by mid-afternoon (UTC). I will first fill out my review form then a (hopefully) brief prose & reference review. I look forward to reading this article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    No major issues.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Online references look good, WP:AGF on print and paywall references.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Mostly one major editor, minor copy edits by others.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Very close. I just have a few questions below in my prose review. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Prose review[edit]

  • It is mentioned several times in the article that the building was originally named Cushing Hall, but is now named Cushing House. Do you know why the name was changed? Or when this change happened?
  • No, and I wish I did. Based on a search of Vassar's student publications (the Miscellany, the Chronicle), the dorm was referred to as Cushing House as early as 1933 and one article continues to refer to it as Cushing Hall as late as 1954. In the interim 21 years, both are used, and seeing as I can find no source indicating an official change and I'm not sure that there ever was one.
  • The article is well thought out and goes into great detail, and frankly I found it very fascinating. The history section talks about the construction of the dorm, how it was built and who it was named for. Are there any notable events that have happened to the building or in the building? The article seems dated in that it only discusses the late 1920s of the building and a few articles of the early 2000s about its beauty. There may not be anything of note to discuss and that would be fine. But if there were any major renovations or remodeling, or if there were other notable events that may have happened, that would warrant inclusion.
  • You're right that this is a bit of a glaring exclusion, so I'll see what I can find within the Misc and Chronicle archives.
  • There's some good stuff here that I'll try to add in in the next few days.
  • Have you thought about an external links section? If you were going to, I would include a link to Vassar's website, and maybe even a link to the student run Cushing House website (
  • Good idea.  Done
  • On that Cushing House website ( the about page, it says it was named for "...Florence Cushing, an early graduate of Vassar and a trustee who brought us the piece of Plymouth Rock that is built into the structure of the New England building..." Do you know if this means that a piece of Plymouth Rock was built into the structure of Cushing House? If so and it can be WP:RS that's major notable and should be included.
  • The piece of Plymouth Rock is built into a different building, confusingly titled the New England Building. Without it being built into Cushing, I don't know if it merits a mention on the page, despite it being an action of the dorm's namesake. If you're interested, more on the rock can be found here.
  • Also from that site, there claims to be "mighty fine gargoyles." Looking at the photo, it looks like there are some on the common area exterior. If this is true, is this in tune with the manor house style of the building?
  • My best guess is yes, since those gargoyles must've been taken into consideration when Van Lengen and Reilly classified the dorm as "manor house style".

That is all that I have so far, mostly just questions about the building. I will read through once more after you answer these questions, but you are very close to this being a GA article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Was the dorm always co-ed? I get the feeling that it was originally not, but is there a WP:RS that supports that?
  • No, Vassar was a women's college through 1969. So there were a solid four decades where it was not co-ed. I see where your confusion arises and will work to fix it.
  • I did some minor copyediting that would be too tedious to list. Please look it over to ensure I did not change any meaning.
  • Wonderful, thanks!
That's my whole review after two read-throughs. As soon as the bullets are all addressed, I am happy to pass this article. Please let me know if you have questions. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review! I'll take a look at this, especially the history section between the '20s and '00s and try and improve coverage of that. I will be traveling over the next few days so I may not get some of this done until later in the week; thanks in advance for your patience and care in assessing this page. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 18:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Everything is looking great. I'd just add some of the more relevant stuff that you found, and you're golden! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Your addition today is fantastic, that is extremely relevant and very well sourced content. Much more interesting article. I'm going to go ahead and pass this nomination. Congratulations, you deserve it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't even totally finished yet (I am now...I think I've covered all your concerns) but I'm glad it passed muster even then. Thanks for the review! BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)