Talk:Old Stone House (Washington, D.C.)

Possible improvements

A few ideas for this article. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Change "Current use" to " Current usage".  Done
• Quite a lot of unnessary wikilinking like fireplace mantal.  Done
• Over use of same sources
• Lead too short  Done
• Does it have a current financial estimate of value, i cant see enything unless im misreading. Done
• In the mid-1700s Georgetown was a growing port town along the Potomac River and one of the largest cities in Maryland. Before the foundation of Washington or the creation of the District of Columbia, the town had attracted workers from nearby states including Christopher and Rachel Layman from Pennsylvania. - This section (aside the people at the bottom) has nothing to do with the house really.  Done
• There is a lot of talk about slaves, does it have any relevance to the house?  Done
• In reality - i little informal terminology  Done
• Try to link some of the stubby sentances together  Done

Thank you for the tips. I've corrected several things you mentioned and I don't know about a financial estimate. I'm not sure where I could find that information. Could you explain your next to the last comment, little informal terminology? Do you mean I need to use more technical words in the article? I added a little bit to the lead. Is it long enough now? Also, you mentioned the overuse of sources. The ones I used are the only RS I could find that go into detail about the house. How many extra sources do you think I need to add? Thanks for your help. APK ^{yada yada} 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In reality was the one instance that stood out to me, i changed it. Doesnt it say it was $90,000 in the 50's, whats that today? If you cant find a proper estimate this is at least something. The lead is better, its ok now. I would leave the sources, it might not be enough to stop GA, the article is generally good. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. The value is $7,010,980.00. APK ^{yada yada} 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Great!!! Its worth adding to the lead as well, its quite significant. For the lead just say over 7 million bucks, dont give the specifics. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I joined some of the stubby sentences and moved some more info to the lead. Now I'm looking for more sources to add. APK ^{yada yada} 19:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Another point, the lead is sourced about 5 times, make sure every thing mentioned in the lead is also mentioned in the content of the article. Then put the sources in the content of the article. The lead shouldnt be sourced, it is just an overview of the article. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll move the references but I nominated the article for DYK and the hook (the first sentence in the article) has to be sourced to qualify. I've searched 20 pages of a Google search and can't find any more RS to add. All I see are blogs, tourism sites, etc. APK ^{yada yada} 20:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, i hate DYK. Never liked it. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed 3 refs from the lead. The other two will have to stay until the DYK process is over. (tomorrow or Friday) The two statements with refs that remain are only mentioned in the lead. I'm not sure where else I can add these facts (and refs) in the article without it sounding repetitive. APK ^{yada yada} 00:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its fine now. Put it up for GA ASAP!!!! ;-) Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I hope I listed it under the right category: Geography and places. Maybe it belongs unde the history section? Thanks for all of your help! APK ^{yada yada} 00:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Its ok where it is dont worry, hope it goes well, call me if you need anything. Later my friend. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review

What an interesting article! I can't believe anyone would choose to use such a lovely building for a used car dealership.

Lead

• "the Old Stone House has been called an oasis for tourists..." - Is "oasis" a little much?  Done (it was a quote from the Washington Post, but you're right)
• There is a whole section for Architecture, but it's not really summarised in the lead, per WP:LEAD.  Done
• To me, it seems strange to say "Today, the home is... then end with "listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973." Probably just personal preference, but I would say the 1973 part before the today part.  Done
• You've mentioned that it's in the Georgetown neighbourhood twice - (the second time as in the heart of the shopping district). I think once is enough.  Done

History

• Link "M Street". It's good to link at first mention in the start of each section.  Done
• I would say "The Laymans' only possessions were", but that's personal preference.  Done
• "The third floor originated in a property line dispute:" - Is there a date for this? Just wondering how long it took, seeing as it took eight years to build the second floor.  Done (I added that it took place in the 1790s. That is the only date I could find, so I don't know the specific year(s).)
• I wonder why locals thought Washington and L'Enfant had met at this building. Is there any info about how that rumour came about? Was Chew still living there at the time, or was it empty?  Done (They met at Suter's Tavern. Suter's son was renting a room at the Old Stone House and somehow the rumor started that Washington and L'Enfant had met there instead. Chew rented a room on the 2nd floor, so yes she was still there at the time.)
• "first of many owners who operated" - please fix.  Done
• Link "Rock Creek Parkway".  Done

Architecture

• Is there an internal link for "pit saw"? (There isn't one)
• "The kitchen is considered the heart of Old Stone" seems a little too sentimental.  Done
• "The second floor architecture has been much changed from the original construction" is unclear - does it mean it was significantly different when originally built, or that it's different now through modifications?  Done (It was constructed of better quality material than the first floor because Chew was considered wealthy.)
• Would Ms Chew have had to pay a tax on the closet? So strange! (yes, until the Revolutionary War; see the paragraph above the historic photo)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Couple of suggestions above.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Just need to incorporate Architecture into the lead.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Leaves me with two questions: who named it Old Stone House, and how come locals thought Washington met there?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Need to fix "oasis" and "kitchen is considered the heart", otherwise fine.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I've put the nomination on hold until you address the issues above. Should be easy, since the article's already in pretty good shape! :) Somno (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"I can't believe anyone would choose to use such a lovely building for a used car dealership." I know what you mean! I walk past it every Saturday and since writing this article, I started bringing a book and relaxing in the garden. There's even a picture of the house during that time period with all of the cars in the back yard. (It's not free use, or else it would have been added) Thank you for pointing out what needs to be changed and also what is missing. I'll work on corrections over the next day or so, but I'm currently under the weather so I'll get to work on this article when I'm not sleeping or eating Jell-O. ;-) Cheers. APK ^{yada yada} 04:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No hurry - the article's been put on hold for seven days but it can be extended a little longer. Get well soon! :) Somno (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've corrected most of the issues except I still can't find a source explaining where the house got its name. I know it was called the "Layman's House" when they owned it, but my guess is the Old Stone House was given the name sometime during the 20th century. I can't add it though without a RS and a Google book search comes up with no answers. If I need to redo any of my recent changes, let me know. Cheers! APK ^{yada yada} 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, congrats! Somno (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Stone House (Washington, D.C.). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090717032933/http://planning.dc.gov/planning/frames.asp?doc=%2Fplanning%2Flib%2Fplanning%2Fpreservation%2Fhp_inventory%2Finventory_narrative_sep_2004.pdf to http://www.planning.dc.gov/planning/frames.asp?doc=%2Fplanning%2Flib%2Fplanning%2Fpreservation%2Fhp_inventory%2Finventory_narrative_sep_2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)