Talk:Dr. Holbrook's Military School

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dr. Holbrook's Military School/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll read through fully later today and begin the review then. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for doing this. I should mention the obvious; this article is very short, but I can ensure you that it has every scrap of information I was able to find about the place, and I did very extensive researching. --ɱ (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem - will read with that in mind! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• " First Provisional Regiment" - I'm assuming this is the New York State Guard unit? If so, probably worth expanding.

I don't know; the source never clarified and thus I won't presume. I wish there were more sources that would detail this; there's probably a lot of lost information that would've been interesting.--ɱ (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's uncertain which Regiment is was, it's almost certainly worth explaining that in the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

After more research, I have come to the conclusion that there was only one First Provisional Regiment, and that's the New York Guard regiment one that guarded the Old Croton Aqueduct in New York. Makes sense, the aqueduct ran close to the school. Thanks to you, I found an excellent source and a photo! link--ɱ (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Johns Hopkins" - worth linking to the relevant article, and possibly expanding to "hospital" (assuming it is that hospital) for non-US readers.

fixed.--ɱ (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• "After Holbrook's death in December 1898, Dr. Holbrook's sons Dudley and Henry became involved with running the school; they were joined in 1899 by their brother Dwight; they ran the school as Holbrook's Preparatory School for Boys until it closed in 1915; that year the school had 80 students." has an strange use of semi-colons. I'd recommend breaking it up slightly as sentences, e.g. "After Holbrook's death in December 1898, Dr. Holbrook's sons Dudley and Henry became involved with running the school. They were joined in 1899 by their brother Dwight, and ran the school as Holbrook's Preparatory School for Boys. When it closed in 1915 the school had 80 students."

Good catch, fixed.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "History" is a lot stronger now, but it has got a lot longer. I'd strongly recommend breaking it at "Shortly after the school's closure..." as this then covers the WW1 material.

OK.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• The two block quotes seemed a lot for a section with only two paragraphs (or three if you broke the second one in two). The first one has some colourful language, but couldn't the second one just support some regular prose as a citation? This would avoid the imbalance in block quotes and actual prose, e.g. you could have:

• "Shortly after the school's closure, in 1917, events in World War I had led the New York Guard's First Provisional Regiment (1,500 men operating under Colonel John B. Rose) to guard the Croton Aqueduct. Captain Charles W. Baldwin, Chaplain of the regiment and Rector of Saint Mary's Episcopal Church in Scarborough and also in present-day Briarcliff Manor, had arranged a deal with V. Everit Macy, then the owner of the school estate, for free use of the campus and buildings for until three months after the war's end.
• "The regiment, originally headquartered at Pines Bridge Inn on Croton Lake, moved its headquarters to the Holbrook Military Academy, and the academic building at the school became Field Hospital No. 2 of the Atlantic Division of the American Red Cross. The ground floor of the west wing and the mess hall on the first floor was turned into a large, well-heated office, equipped with typewriters and mimeograph machines. The site opened for their use on October 8, 1918, and the regiment fully demobilized on February 1, 1919. A reunion was held at the former school grounds for many of the troops from March 23 to 25, 1919."

done.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Reference 1 lacks a page number.

Page numbers are not always required and thus I often hadn't put them in. In this case, Briarcliff: Place of Schools is almost more of a booklet than an actual book; as such it has no defined page numbers.--ɱ (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Reference 4 - not strictly a GA requirement, but giving an ISBN, LCCN, OCLC, and an OL number seemed a little like overkill!

I borrowed that reference from the other Briarcliff articles; it's the most complete and comprehensive, neutral, and authoritative history of Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough. I've never heard of or read that there's any limit to the amount of information you can stick in a reference...--ɱ (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Reference 5 - in comparison, this didn't have any of them...

1903 publications are usually hard to find that information for; the book precedes ISBNS, LCCNs, OCLCs, and OLs, some by almost a century. The 1977 history of Briarcliff merely has an OCLC and nothing else, and that's an almost contemporary publication! All I can find for ref 5 is an OCLC, and it's not even a precise one, but it'll do.--ɱ (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be treated as a journal/magazine, so the ISSN might be an option. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you find an ISSN? I didn't.--ɱ (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WorldCat gives it as 0083-9396 if that helps at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

NB: consistent citation style isn't a GA requirement, but the article now has more different styles than before - I'd really recommend making them consistent. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What inconsistencies did you see? Again I'm not spotting any...--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• The last sentence of the second paragraph of the history section is uncited.
• The last sentence of the Curricula paragraph is uncited.
• The notable persons sentence is uncited.

The above requirement says "in-line citations...for [list]", not "in-line citations...for everything". Although I strongly agree with the latter idea and follow it with most articles I've written; in this case it's far too tough. Some of the uncited information was already here when I started work on this article, some was taken from the school's newspaper ads, which I consider reliable enough (none taken from those is boastful material in the slightest) although not only would I not think it good enough to cite but I wouldn't even know where to begin. As well, this article is so thin on information that I really can't discriminate; every sentence-worth of information that I find is gold. This turn of the 19th century school likely is documented in some lost or forgotten volume, but all I can access are the Briarcliff history publications which make little mention of it, and the internet, which had next to nothing on the place before someone started the Wikipedia article.--ɱ (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we know where the specific claims about the pupils came from though? Whether the citation is inline or not, if we don't have any idea whether the claim is backed by any sources, then there's a problem. John W. Norton, for example, was (according to his own article) brought up in Illinois. That doesn't mean that he couldn't have boarded in New York, but I'd normally expect to see a source for the claim (inline or general). The same applies to some of other very specific claims about the school. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll look again tomorrow. I don't expect to find much, but who knows.--ɱ (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009: It was easier than I thought/remembered to find sources for them; it's all done now.--ɱ (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• First two are fine.
• File:George Whipple nobel.jpg has a valid Swedish tag, but it also needs a valid US tag (i.e. why is the photograph copyright free in the US?) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.--ɱ (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• And the new image is also fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Generally fine. File:George Whipple nobel.jpg is presented at 100px, which seemed odd as there didn't seem to be any reason for this; the MOS would seem to prefer a default size (or possibly an upright tag). Hchc2009 (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Most 'notable people' sections don't really need large images of the people, and it looks slightly odd like that. I'll switch the 'px' to upright.--ɱ (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)