Wikipedia:Peer review/Literary Hall/archive1

Literary Hall

I have selected Literary Hall for a Peer Review because I would like to improve its overall quality for submission to Featured Article candidacy. Any and all guidance and suggestions would be greatly appreciated as I prepare this article for FAC. Thank you! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO

Lead

• museum in Romney in the U.S. state of West Virginia.

I don't claim to be a master grammarian, but this seems like a run-on. I'd rewrite this as, "museum in Romney, West Virginia."

• one of the first in the United States

This will probably get fixed if you tweak that first sentence, but right now you say U.S. before United States.

• Per WP:LEADCITE, the Michael J. Pauley quotes needs an in-line citation.

• Rationalobserver, thank you for taking the time to engage in this thoughtful peer review. I've made the corrections for the lede section per your request. I promise to address the remainder of your comments as soon as is possible. Thank you! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Location

• I would be nice to know how many acres the Northern Neck Proprietary claim encompassed.
• immediate west of the "publick" square of Romney

I wonder is it would be better to not spell it this way and juts drop the scare quotes.

• I've addressed all the above in this section. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Romney Literary Society

• which built Literary Hall between 1869 and 1870 at this location

I think you should drop at this location as redundant.

• The Romney Literary Society also commenced a movement to establish an institution for "the higher education of the youth of the community".

Because the next citation is a group of three, it would be best to put the cite that verifies this quote immediately after the quote.

Actually, all three sources support the quote, so I've placed them all after it. Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• The contents of the society's library were plundered by Union Army forces

Was this a specific incident/attack?

There was no singular incident or attack during which this occurred; it happened throughout the course of the war. If there was a singular event, sources do not specify. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Following the war, the Romney Literary Society reorganized on May 15, 1869.[26][27][29] Following the reorganization

I think you could safely drop following the war.

• Literary Hall. However, as older members died

It's best to avoid "however" in encyclopedic writing.

I've addressed all the above suggestions and questions. Thank you for your guidance on this section! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Clinton Lodge

• Literary Hall was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 29, 1979

Was there an notable efforts to get it listed?

There were not any notable efforts to get the hall listed. I know through personal knowledge that it was a personal project of Mr. Haines, its previous owner. I do not have sources to support this, however. --West Virginian (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hampshire County Public Library

Architecture

• The building is tall in its proportion

How tall? How many stories? I see you mention this later, but it might be better sooner.

• with nine over nine light sashes

Can you link or explain this better?

• I've wiki-linked sash window to provide context. See if this works as written. Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Chambers described this window as the most "old-fashioned" of the building's architectural elements

I'd paraphrase or drop the scare quotes here, as this is a generic term that no one writer can claim as unique and creative.

• I've replaced old-fashioned as antiquated as that still conveys the author's intent. -- West Virginian (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

I made a few minor edits ([1]). This is an excellent piece. Its well-written and engaging. The level of detail is sufficient without being too much. Nice job; keep up the great work, and let me know when you take this to FAC. RO^(talk) 18:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, thank you again for engaging in this most appreciated comprehensive and thorough peer review! I appreciate you taking the time to complete this and provide me with guidance so that this article is worthy of FAC. I've addressed all your above comments, questions, and concerns. Please let me know if you have any other outstanding questions regarding this article and I will address them as soon as is possible. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)