Talk:Sully Historic Site/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will review this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Id4abel: Found time for some reviewing. I have added all my comments: Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

We generally exclude citations from the lead. They go to the main text, and all facts of the lead should be mentioned in the main text
- ..."there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."Abel (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand this, and that is why I leave it to you to decide what for to include citations in the lead. I had a similar discussion on Pink slime, where we retained citations because the claims could be controversial. But the claims in this article's lead do not, in my opinion, require citations. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you prefer to have the citations as they are, may I know why? I like to have things sorted out in reviews, and interaction helps us all learn. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure. While you and I may not consider the text controversial, there is certainly someone who does. Having citations reduces conflict for all the reasons that citations are used, making "not needed" a hasty assumption. Abel (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Add a word about who William Swartwort was
- No one seems to know or care about about who William Swartwort was.Abel (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Sully" is repeated. You can use variation by saying "the place".
- "The place" is unclear, Sully is very clear.Abel (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
with a focus on the Lee family What does it mean?
- It means the Park Authority ignores the other owners.Abel (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added "an exclusive," which is redundant. Abel (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Lee period

Nothing is recorded about the disposition of this land Can you be that sure? Perhaps say "Little is recorded"?
- That would conflict with the source, but if that is what you prefer...Abel (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The final choice is of course the nominator's. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given that the reviewer has the power to fail the review, the final choice seems to be the reviewer's. Abel (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I respect the nominator's preference, because they know their work better. I am not bent upon any point, I will not force you to change it if you feel it is improper. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        That is a very reasonable approach. The odd part is that every issue raised has been addressed, yet the review has not passed.Abel (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I am sorry, I did not find time to check the article. I thought you had not yet decided what to do with this part. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bland Lee

reduced the soil depletion characteristic of tobacco production Perhaps say "reduced the soil depletion caused by tobacco production"?
- changed to "inherent to"Abel (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do wheat, corn, peach, apple, dairy and estate need links? They are fairly common terms.
- Then why have those articles at all?Abel (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not challenging their significance. I recommend removing links to common terms, that is all. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Lightfoot Lee II

The article deviates from its main focus in the first para of this section. It is all about the person. I would recommend deleting it and if you have to introduce family members, like his second wife Jane, do so as we keep talking about Sully.
- removedAbel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should call him F.L., that seems informal; rather say Francis.
- There are not only many Francis Lees, there are many Francis Lightfoot Lees, who were all alive at the same time, hence his family calling him F.L.. Which also explains the note about the book that labels him Francis Lightfoot 5 when his name is Francis Lightfoot Lee II.Abel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which gained Jane a reputation for a "judicious system of husbandry." Not a complete sentence, merge with the previous line. Also, introduce Jane here if the first para is deleted.
- doneAbel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then in 1816, due to complications during the birthing of their fifth child Frances Ann Lee, Jane Fitzgerald Lee died. Four years later in 1820, F. L. had either a nervous breakdown, or possibly a stroke. In either case, he became unable to care for himself and in 1825 was committed to the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia Appears unnecessarily long.
- now shorter Abel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which explains the park authority decision to have Sully "completely furnished with antiquities from the Federal period." Not a complete sentence, merge with the previous line.
- doneAbel (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. Good luck! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. I believe the article should be ready for promotion now. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]