Roger Mowry Tavern has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 19, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Roger Mowry Tavern/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's what I found:
- "The originally a one and a half story single room house with a chamber upstairs, the house was expanded with a two story lean-to by 1711 and at an unknown time, " Rm the, start sentence with Originally.
- "The original portion of the house was restored by The Roger Mowry Tavern was the oldest house in" Looks like it's missing a word or phrase here.
- "appear in the America's in" rm apostrophe, though I'd just remove it and keep the sentence to "The first records of Roger Mowry appear in Boston, Massachusetts."
- "On May 18, 1631, noted that Roger Mawry desire to be a freeman." Mowry. Also, who noted?
- "A family monument lists Mowry has having twelve children," as having
- "By the time of Isham's restoration, the house had been greatly altered," This is the first mention of a restoration by Isham, and it feels rather sudden. That's at least something I'd make a small mention of in the lead or note the restoration on his first mention.
- "and the tavern may have been a contribution reason for the passage of a law " a contributing reason
A bit on the sloppy side compared to what I usually see from you, but nonetheless the fixes are easy. I'll put the article on hold and pass when the above is fixed. Wizardman 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Wizardman: - I see what you mean and did many more fixes in the process. Thanks for checking it out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Looks better now, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman 17:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Wizardman: - I see what you mean and did many more fixes in the process. Thanks for checking it out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)