Talk:Van Cortlandt House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copy and pasted from external site[edit]

I noticed that the original version of this article is text copied from http://www.vancortlandthouse.org/ --JBrown23 (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Van Cortlandt House Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Van Cortlandt House
The Van Cortlandt House

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 15:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Van Cortlandt House; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Low earwig score, and 5x expanded. Neutral and well written with the correct inline citations. ALT0 is confirmed and interesting - I found it cited in the article. QPQ is done. The image is clear and free and it is in the article. Bruxton (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External photos[edit]

Hello Epicgenius, thanks for yet another fine article expansion. I have a question about the two b&w external photos. Both have captions saying they are views "from the southwest" but appear to be different aspects? The 1937 photo is documented as from southwest but there is no indication of view direction of the 1949 photo? JennyOz (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Van Cortlandt House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ghosts of Europa (talk · contribs) Hello Epicgenius! I'm looking forward to reviewing one of your articles. 05:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Excellent work on this article! I've been to New York, but I never made it up to the Bronx. I'll have to visit next time I'm in town.

  • Well written, extremely thorough, and neutral.
  • Extensively cited. I spot checked 20 randomly chosen sources and found no source-text integrity issues.
  • No edit wars.
  • Great images, all public domain or permissively licensed.
  • Earwig gives a 23% similarity to the NPS website, but this looks like it's just keying off the proper names and architectural terms of art. I checked the article for specific phrases and didn't see any sign of copying.

I'm happy to pass this without any changes. However, if you want some picky feedback for a future FAC:

  • When Philipse's wife died, he remarried Olof Stevense Van Cortlandt's daughter, herself a widow - This is the first mention of Olof, but it's written like I should know who he was. More context might be helpful here.
  • The grounds were used by Patriot militia leaders Comte de Rochambeau, Marquis de Lafayette, and George Washington (the last of whom would become the first president of an independent United States) - This long parenthetical is awkward ("and future president George Washington"?), especially since you don't mention Grover Cleveland's presidency when talking about him. I'm guessing more readers will know about Washington's presidency than Cleveland's.
  • The Dames also announced plans to build an annex to the house, but Park Board landscape architect Charles Downing Lay vetoed these plans in April 1912. The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) received bids for the annex's construction in 1913 but rejected all of them. The annex, consisting of a caretaker's apartment adjacent to the main house, was finished in 1916 or 1917, just before World War I - This is confusing. If the plans were vetoed and the bids were rejected, how did it get built? It feels like a sentence is missing here.

Honestly, I think that's all I have. Great work! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.