This article is about the former home of the Romney Literary Society, which is also represented with a featured article on Wikipedia. This article is the most comprehensive history of the this notable structure. This article also underwent a peer review. Please feel free to share your comments, guidance, and suggestions here; I will address them as quickly as possible. Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the article seems fine and I didn't notice any significant issues that would cause it to fail the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 2:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Dank, thank you tremendously for your review and edits, of which I am in full concurrence. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is asserted several times that the design contains Greek Revival elements, but it doesn't seem to say what these are supoposed to be. Even given the loose stylistic grip of most American writing on the subject it seems most unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I thank you for your comment and I understand your concern. "Greek Revival" is used rather generously in the United States, and the label is usually applied when a building is symmetrical in architectural plans, elevations, and massing. I have some sources that can support this; however, the sources cited here do not explicitly state this and it would be original research for me to include these details otherwise. Because the sources do say "Greek Revival" without being specific as to which details qualify, I would like to keep this Greek Revival designation in the text. Please let me know if you have any suggestions moving forward, as this is a small part of the article as a whole. Thank you again for your comment! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, even in the US it takes more than that ("Georgian" is applied that way for an earlier period). I certainly don't think it is acceptable (repeated 3 times) at FA to misuse terms like that. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because architectural historian S. Allen Chambers and West Virginia state architectural historian Michael J. Pauley both contend that Literary Hall exhibits Greek Revival detailing, I would prefer to keep "Greek Revival" in the article's prose. I acknowledge that both historians were not as specific as they should have been, but I don't want to leave their classifications of the building's architecture out of the article. I thank you for your comment and suggestion, but I must respectfully disagree Johnbod. If FAC reviewer consensus deems it necessary to remove the classification I will take it out, as I don't want this one phrase to be a stumbling block for FA status. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images are clear and show the building in question, not people, etc.
Text of the article is good, no problems that I can see.
Lede is also good, no problems there.
All and all, another great article. Well done, WV! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhomer, thank you for taking the time to engage in this review, provide feedback, and lend your support. It is greatly appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check
Ref 1 -- used three times. Don't understand the purpose of its usage the first time. Nowhere do I find the source that says that it was designated on May 29, 1979. Also, maintain consistency with the date's format and get rid of "Staff".
FrB.TG, thank you so much for engaging in the spot check source review--it is very appreciated! Regarding the first source, it is formatted with the "NRISref" template. I changed the "dateform" so that the date in this source is consistent with the date formatting throughout the article. I've removed the source from its first and third uses and replaced it with a new citation that cites the date of inclusion on the NRHP. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can improve on. Thank you again for the review! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not sure why this hasn't been promoted already. FrB.TG (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
