Talk:Middletown Historic District (Middletown, Virginia)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: APK (talk · contribs) 08:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm starting in on this GA review. Please give me a bit to survey everything and we'll have some things to review. Reconrabbit 17:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sections

Lead

• Thoroughly summarizes the points presented in the article.

Geography

• No prose issues (other than maybe preferential use/disuse of commas?).
• Only one source.

The issue with only one source being used in some of the sections is due to a lack of coverage. I used the only thing I could find. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

History

• later renamed Valley Turnpike followed by U.S. Route 11. This is awkward. There needs to be a better way to say that the road changed name twice.
• Many uses of "latter" and "later" in the same sentence. A little hard to follow sometimes.
• They later used the church as a stable and burned most of the interior. Is "They" the Confederates or the Union?
• Following a devastating fire that took place on Main Street in 1941, residents and town officials saw the need for a volunteer fire company. This did not occur until two years later due to events taking place during World War II. What were these events?
• Fifteen years later the property began housing a live theater company and was later renamed the Wayside Theatre. What was renamed the Wayside Theater, the property itself? Or was the live theater company that was housed 15 years later also the Bordon-Lee Theater?

I made some changes. How does it look now? APK hi :-) (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifying changes. Reconrabbit 14:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Contributing properties

• No prose issues. Shares some similarities to the nomination document.
• Only one source.

Images

• All images pertain to the subject of the article and are released under appropriate licenses.

Neutrality / Copyright / Scope / Stability

• No edit-warring or disruptive behavior in recent history here.
• Searching for copyright violations links many phrases in the text to the detailed description in the 2002 nomination cited many times in the article. I assume similarities are unavoidable in many cases (constant use of "National Register of Historic Places", "Independent Order of Odd Fellows").

References

Source check (as of this revision):

• [1] Y
• [2] Working...
• [3] Y
• [5] Y Where is it said the interior of the church was burned? Supplemented.
• [7] Y
• [8] Y
• [9] N This map is very unhelpful in verifying the status of the Evans House. (There is a dearth of better ways to represent this.)
• [10] Y
• [11] Y
• [12] Y

Added a source for ref 5. For ref 9 (now 10) I'm not sure what else I can use to demonstrate the house was demolished, other than Google Street View. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

When I follow the link for the new reference http://www.handleyregional.org/Handley/Archives/St.%20Thomas%20Episcopal%20721.htm it takes me to a "page not found". Fixing that would be the last thing needed to pass review. Reconrabbit 14:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done APK hi :-) (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Reconrabbit 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes

• I don't know how necessary it is to provide a list of every contributing building in the district, especially in an expanded table. Compare Old Jeffersonville Historic District, New Bedford Historic District, and Central Troy Historic District, Good Articles that do not explicitly list every contributing building. Having just seen Financial Historic District (Washington, D.C.), I stand corrected.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.