Contents

Talk:Avery Homestead

Avery Homestead has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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 20, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Connecticut Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I suggest merging Avery House (Griswold, Connecticut) into this article, it is a duplicate but this one has an extra reference and has been around slightly longer. Markvs88 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it was not clear from my edit summary, Avery House and Avery Homestead are two different places, over 20 miles apart. I have restored the House article as best I could, and altered this one to reflect the seperation. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there 71.234.215.133. I've reverted your edits as they are the same place given the only reference provided. Can you cite something to show that these are two different locations? Unfortunately the NRHP as a resource is "somewhat inaccurate" at best, so while I don't think you're wrong we do need something to show that it isn't the same place. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same ref: 92001641 and 86001726 are their NRHP references. They cite different historical documents to place the location(s) in history, including a map from 1854 (commercial link) showing "T Avery" at the proper place for the Homestead in Ledyard, and "Capt Avery" at the proper place for the House in Griswold. The pictures from NRHP (Homestead, House) also show different houses: the chimneys are different, as is the spacing of the front windows in relation to the sides of the houses and the foundations. I erred in assigning the wrong city to the Homestead in the text, but the infoboxes and refs were correct. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bit late to this, but I was waiting for this document to be digitized... I am not sure if the pictures were done and the photos were not, but I had to pause on this page because I could not get said document due to lack of digitization until just recently. Anyways, I've filled out the article and added the other relevant sources and nominated it for GAN. Thanks for assisting all those years ago, the other Avery House is already a Good Article. Now this can join it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Avery Homestead/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(reference section): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects): b(focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Per CorenSearchBot - no sign of copyright violations. Random googling of three phrases shows no copyright violations, only wikipedia mirrors.
• Sources look fine. Did a quick troll through JSTOR and turned up nothing.
• Overview:
  • NOt required, but "overlooks a hundred acres of stone-walled" should be "100" per the MOS. Also should probably have a conversion to SI units.
  • Likewise should probably have a conversion for "extends west for a mile before"
• Design
  • Link or context for "found on the chimney girt of hall" - girt is not something I'm familiar with
  • "served as an open shed until 1965 where is was converted to a shop and office" .. uh, something is garbled here and I can't untangle it. I think you mean "served as an open shed until 1965 when it was converted to a shop and office" but I'm not sure.
  • the quote starting "longitudinal summer beams extending from the end..." needs a citation on it, not on the end of the paragraph.
• Importance:
  • Quote starting "rare survival of a late-seventeenth..." needs a citation on it, not at the end of the paragraph.
• Notes
  • Can we have a different section title for this section? Perhaps "Plaque issues" or "Plaque concerns" or "Historical plaque"?

I did a bit of copyediting. I am not nearly up to copyediting at the FA level, so if you're planning on heading this article towards FAC, I strongly recommend someone else going over it. It's a nice little article, good work!

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing @Ealdgyth:. I did all the fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source for the date has evidence of a 17th century construction date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]