Talk:King Manor/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Recon rabbit 17:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 01:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been collecting dust for long enough. Here's my effort on reviewing it. Recon rabbit 20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I'm done reviewing here. There are a couple notes on whether details should be included or excluded but I think those are coming down to personal opinion. If it was a major concern I'd ask on WP NYC or somewhere similar. Recon rabbit 13:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Summarizes all major points of the article. Y

Prose notes

Site

All good. Doesn't look like there are any obvious historical records of specific native groups in the Jamaica region that the land was bought from to go into further detail. Y

Use as residence

King erected the eastern portion of the main house.[19][52][60] The interiors were redesigned in the Federal and Georgian styles. These statements seem awkward just standing on their own. If combined (along with the following sentence about the 1910 expansion) they may flow better and make it more obvious that the eastern addition was prior to or during 1910 (though sources are vague about the exact year it was built, only that King built it).
- I've combined the second sentence with the sentence after it. Epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use as park and museum

1900s: Is it worthwhile to specifically distinguish between the KMA having been "formed" and having elections by February 1900, but only being "incorporated" in December? It clarifies itself by reading to the end, but the first paragraph makes it a little unclear.
- I've reworded this so it's more clear that the KMA received its certificate of incorporation in December 1900. Epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1930s to 1970s: how relevant is it to the history of the place that there were drug addicts in King Park as reported only by the New York Daily News? Is it related to the parks enforcement patrol station later on?
- It might be. I don't know if Long Island newspapers also reported on this story, though; if not, this detail might be too minor to include, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Noting that The rooms included imported marble fireplace mantels is strange when the mantels are described in detail later on; is the Interior heading meant to signify a summary of the following floors?
- As to is the Interior heading meant to signify a summary of the following floors?, yes. Epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No notes on this section, then. Y

Operation

Made a minor edit to link Sampler (needlework) and make the plurality of exhibits consistent (?). Otherwise Y

Impact

"the adjacent Jamaica Avenue elevated Elevated as a shorthand for "elevated railway" is a little confusing since it isn't used anywhere previously in the article.
- I have rephrased this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Very little if any vandalism. No edit wars as I can see. Stable, main changes in the months since nomination have been copy-edits. Y

Broad / narrowness

References

Multiref (unbulleted list citebundle) is used inconsistently in places. E.g., it's used for [80] but not [244].
- Good point. I've consistently formatted all refs where multiple citations were used. Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks

Based on this revision:

[5] Y
[13] Y
[18] Y
[19] Y
[22] Y
[34] Y
[37] Y
[42] Y
[51] Y but is it typical to use "said" for [Charles King's] written statements? May be preference, I don't know. I might have missed if the book was dictated.
- I don't think the book was dictated, but I sometimes use "said" synonymously with "stated". I'm going to change it to "wrote" to clear things up. Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[52] Y
[60] Y
[69] Y
[74] Y
[83] Y
[91] Y
[104] Y
[112] Y Great quote.
[120] Y
[132] Y
[146] Y
[153] Y
[166] Y
[174] Y
[189] Y
[212] Y
[224] Y It might be worthwhile to add the context from the article that efforts from the Dept. of Parks and Recreation led to the relocation of a soccer league from the park to York College but I could see that being considered undue weight on marginal details.
[235] Y
[236] Y
[239] Y
[254] Y
[284] Y
[295] Y

Copyright/OR

Very low % score on Earwig. I can't check the Google results but I'll trust what Morogris said on the DYK nomination.

Images

Images have appropriate use rationales/are all under appropriate licenses. Most are "own work". They are also placed in places where it makes sense. I would say that the article could do with more images of the interior, but it's certainly not within the scope of this review and one can paint a picture with words here. It's not the most unique house in New York.
- Yeah... sadly I didn't have the opportunity to photograph the house back when I was in the area last year. I might not be able to drop by for a while, anyway, due to how busy I am in real life. Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - A concern for higher-level scrutiny for sure. It's good to know what it looks like from the outside and inside on a base level, and we have that. Recon rabbit 00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The caption of the first image under section "Architecture" could use a better caption than "Rufus King home". It's also got a "Rufus King Jamaica Ave" watermark on it?
- I've changed the caption and might crop out the watermark later. Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these images are also uploaded by "King Manor Association". Good on them if it's the real association putting up these freely usable photos but it would be nice to confirm if that's accurate. Not necessary at all of course, assuming people (organizations) are who they say they are.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.