Talk:Edward Steves Homestead
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Edward Steves Homestead appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 September 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Article structure and facts
editThis article strikes me as being organized a bit oddly. Instead of starting with the building of the homestead and those details (it never gives the year the main building was completed!), and only later going to its donation in 1952, it starts with the donation. I think the homestead needs to be its own subsection or at least paragraph: mention year started (if known), year completed (1877), designer, style, construction details... all these details together, rather than spread out. All the donation and post-donation details can come in a separate paragraph or section.
The article states that there are three buildings on the property, but this SACS web page gives details on four old buildings: Homestead, River House, Carriage House, and the Servants Quarters (now a Welcome Center). This needs correction and/or clarification. If you can clarify between the donated property/estate and the donated buildings (since SACS seems to be in charge of them all instead of just the Homestead building), that would also be helpful. Giving dates to the construction of the four buildings would be helpful as well.
The bulk of the material is already here and referenced; I think it just needs a little shuffling about and a few more facts to be a nice, tight little article. Look forward to seeing it! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- That was a good catch about my missing the Carriage House. Thank you for that. I've added it. I think you have been correct about the structuring of the article, and I have done some rearranging. Every source gives a different year on when the main building was completed. Even the authorities can't agree. That particular issue has been a stickler for me. This one is a puzzler, in the fact that I haven't seen anything that convinces me anyone has been looking at original records of the building. It's more likely that sources on the original building has been oral history from more than one person. If someone can come up with the definitive source and year - hallelujah. Maile66 (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)