Talk:Bristol County Jail/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

"The second floor is arrange differently from the first floor, with the rooms above the front parlor and reception room believed to have been the bedroom for the jailer and his family, with the parlor (the west room) is described as "quite elegant in its simplicity with its original wainscot and cornice of run mouldings".[2]" -Grammar errors and run-on sentence.

Fixed ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"The middle room on the second floor was believed to be a low-security cell due to the presence of two windows which have markings of iron bars in the granite sills and the 13.2 feet (4.0 m) wide by 20.6 feet (6.3 m) long room may have been divided as two cells, in the rear is access to a small hallway and access to the attic, but this was described as being a later modification.[2] -Grammar errors and run-on sentence.

Fixed ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"The south-east corner at the back of the building were the maximum security cells, constructed of wood and walled in by stone walls and iron doors, the cells had no heat, light or bathrooms." -Run-on sentence.

Fixed ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Underneath the cells were two courses of 8 inches (0.20 m) by 8 inches (0.20 m) timbers superimposed on top of one another, these timbers are believed to have been sourced from the original 1792 jail." -Run-on sentence.

Fixed ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"The exterior stone walls are 21 inches (0.53 m) thick on the front and west exterior, but are 24 inches (0.61 m) for the walls that support the maximum security cells." - eliminate comma

• Why? A comma before "but" is required. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right. I don't know why I thought differently.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Founded in 1936, the Bristol Historical Society is dedicated to preserving, collecting, and promote historical research and interest in southern New England..." - this switches from the present participle to the infinitive structure (basically, "promote" should be changed to "promoting" in order to keep the sentence structure consistent)

Fixed ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"The jail was recently abandoned in June 1957 by the State of Rhode Island.[2]" - Recently? That was 57 years ago.

"Originally, the Bristol Historical Society was located in the Rogers Free Library, but a fire destroyed a part of the collections on July 27, 1957.[3][4] The jail was recently abandoned in June 1957 by the State of Rhode Island.[2] As a result of the fire, the Bristol Historical Society leased the Bristol County Jail from the State of Rhode Island.[3]" - move the sentence about the jail being abandoned to right before the discussion of the fire, as the abandonment was a month before.

There is nothing really wrong with "recently" because of the context, the fire was in July and the jail was abandoned in June - recently certainly works, but it is a tad confusing. So I fixed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"The Society restored the jail cells through a matching grant from the National Park Service, they are used as public exhibit.[3]" - the second phrase in the sentence is grammatically incorrect. Rework to something like "and they are now exhibited to the public" or "and they are now available for access as public exhibits."

Fixed ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"The jail is historically significant as a relatively unaltered historic jail that was important to the 18th-century Bristol county. The National Register of Historic Places nomination also notes the significance as the building currently serves as the home of the Bristol Historical and Preservation Society, which is dedicated to preserving the past." These two sentences are extremely awkward. Try rewording them to something like "The jail is significant as a relatively unaltered example of a historic jail that was important to 18th-century Bristol county." and "The... nomination also notes this significance, in particular highlighting the fact that the jail currently serves as the home of the Bristol Historical and Preservation Society."

Fixed ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I did some cleanup from the change - variants of "historic" were used twice in the same sentence, a redundancy.

In addition to what I noted above, the whole article should be polished up for word choice and flow.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable."

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Solidly referenced and adequate use of citations. Okay here.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All major issues covered, article stays within the topic of discussion, and historical context provided.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Very neutral, no bias detected.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Quite stable.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images check out. All free, with correct licensing info.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

6. Overall: Needs some serious proofreading before I can pass it.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Y Done.--¿3family6 _contribs 05:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Pass/Fail:

Did the fixes and a bunch more. Added a bunch of wiki-links for the architectural terms that some people have been confused over in the past. I am glad to have done this article. It was quite an unusual entry and its why I picked it up when I noticed it on my pile! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Very nice! One last thing that I noticed: "Also, it is speculated that this 13.2 feet (4.0 m) wide by 20.6 feet (6.3 m) long room may have been divided as two cells." - This needs attribution. Perhaps render it as "Also, this room, with dimensions of 13.2 feet (4.0 m) wide by 20.6 feet (6.3 m), may have been divided into two cells" or "The NRHP nomination of Bristol County Jail suggests that this room, with dimensions ____, may have been divided into two cells."--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done @3family6: - It was the same source, but I also fixed the wording. People have complained about over citation uses and I personally like all the text being cited so I can cross-check and maintain them easier. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I'm fine with the citation being only at the end of the paragraph, or I would have commented on it earlier. However, if you use a term like "it is speculated," you need to mention, in the article text, who is doing the speculating (I personally feel that "speculates" is over-used, but I won't insist on a usage either way).--¿3family6 _contribs 19:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I dropped speculation, it is an educated guess - but it is not attributed to anyone and just exists in the NRHP nomination. The evidence for cells is not physical, but given the large size, this would be expected. This is the absolute best I could do for this barring its removal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. All I wanted was for the hypothesis to be directly attributed in-text, nothing more. All other issues resolved, so this passes.--¿3family6 _contribs 05:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)