Talk:General John Hathorn Stone House

Assessment

Per criteria, I have assessed this article as start class. I was very close to giving it b class and feel that this is a pretty good example of what would fall under C class, if we had one. Overall, a very nice article that conforms to NRHP style guidelines. Broooooooce (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I always hit this impass when I assess NRHP articles, the problem I run into is that many properties on the register are fairly straight forward and can be adequately covered without necessitating an unnecessarily lengthy discourse. Put simply: Often times, there is only so much you can say about a house. So, I decided to reexamine the criteria.

A B-class article should have a majority of the following:

1. a particularly useful picture or graphic
2. multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
3. a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
4. multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article

Obviously, this article meets that criterion. It also contains none of the policy problems that the criteria actually allows for B-class articles. Lastly, B-class is described as "Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work." This article meets that criteria as well, thus I have decided to assess this as B-class, in spite of it's length (which for it's topic, I feel is appropriate). Broooooooce (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

carved initials

The ampersand seems to be in the wrong place, coming before the surname, not between the given names. This should be checked and corrected if wrong, and if true, there should probably be some acknowledgment that this isn't quite right. Otherwise it will remain confusing to close readers. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)