Talk:Morris–Jumel Mansion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Geetram Hitnarine. Peer reviewers: Geetram Hitnarine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review?[edit]

No tag on talk page, if you want I can complete your peer review request and put it on the peer review page, see Wikipedia:Peer review since NRHP Project never developed a peer review of its own. : ). But might I suggest a few things.

  • Lead expanding, after the article is all done, see lead guidelines.
  • History and today sections should be merged, because today is really just the modern history.
  • Bolded ref titles should be italicized.
  • For web sources try to include the author (if available) publisher, and date of last access.
  • Full dates should be linked in these two cases: If there's a full year like this: March 31, 2022 or if the day and month are given like this: March 21, stand alone years need not be linked unless they provide significant context. (Didn't look like you did this last one though, just stating)
  • I usually do a section titled "Significance" where I talk about its National Register of Historic Places listing and any other landmark statues a structure might have.
  • In general could do with some expansion.

That's all for now. : ) Hope it helps, any questions don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Happy editing. IvoShandor 13:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the basic reference of the NRHP Inventory-Nomination document text and photos, and made other cleanups. My main suggestion is to increase discussion of significance, as IvoShandor suggests. The reference already in the article (which I reformatted) about Places Where Women Made History covers some fascinating material, and there is also good info in the NRHP document. Also, are there any NYC or NYS historic designations for the site? I didn't like the "Today" section title either, and tried changing it. It is perhaps better but still not proper, the choppy division between sections. It seems to me the quality is getting there and should be above Stub status. But I'm still new and not used to doing evaluations yet. Keep up the good work! doncram 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality rating for WP:NRHP[edit]

I'm just adding a "See Also" item, reformatting the "Official site" link, and refining the NRHP references. Then I feel the article meets emerging criteria for Start rating within WP:NRHP. These are:

  1. at least a short intro is written. What is written is factually and grammatically correct.
  2. NRHP infobox is included.
  3. NHL designation date is included within the NRHP infobox.
  4. NHL summary source is referenced as source for NHL designation date.
  5. NRHP inventory/nomination text is linked.
  6. accompanying NRHP photo set is linked (within same reference)
  7. the "official site" of the owner or controlling organization, in this case the website of Morris-Jumel Mansion, Inc., is included as an External link. Format as "Official site: (link)".
  8. that External links section exists and includes at least one link.
  9. that See Also section exists and points to List of NHLs in the state.

So I am upping it from "Stub" to "Start-class" quality rating. Upping it further could be merited, too. doncram 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morris–Jumel Mansion. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morris–Jumel Mansion. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 00:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
View of the Morris-Jumel Mansion
View of the Morris-Jumel Mansion
  • ... that in 2016, the Morris–Jumel Mansion may have seen a 75 percent increase in visitors because of the Broadway musical Hamilton? Source: Harpaz, Beth J. (June 18, 2016). "Historic site visits up since Hamilton; Harlem home, burial site see 75 per cent increase since Tony Award-winning musical". Chronicle – Herald. p. E2.
    • ALT1: ... that a manuscript discovered in the Morris–Jumel Mansion was sold for $912,000 to finance the mansion's endowment fund? Source: Barry, Rebecca Rego (December 1, 2015). "An Intern Saved a Museum by Finding This Revolutionary War Treasure in the Attic". Smithsonian Magazine.
    • ALT2: ... that the Morris–Jumel Mansion, built for a British Army officer, housed both American and British soldiers during the American Revolutionary War? Source: Harrington, John Walker (February 21, 1932). "Many Historic Sites Here Recall Memory of Washington". New York Herald Tribune. p. G1; Shelton, William Henry (1916). The Jumel Mansion: Being a Full History of the House on Harlem Heights Built by Roger Morris Before the Revolution. Together with Some Account of Its More Notable Occupants... History of women. Houghton Mifflin. p. 131
    • ALT3: ... that the Morris–Jumel Mansion, Manhattan's oldest surviving house, was used by both American and British soldiers during the American Revolutionary War? Source: Harrington, John Walker (February 21, 1932). "Many Historic Sites Here Recall Memory of Washington". New York Herald Tribune. p. G1; Shelton, William Henry (1916). The Jumel Mansion: Being a Full History of the House on Harlem Heights Built by Roger Morris Before the Revolution. Together with Some Account of Its More Notable Occupants... History of women. Houghton Mifflin. p. 131
    • ALT4: ... that British Army officer Roger Morris built a New York City mansion that he occupied for only ten years? Source: Gray, Christopher; Braley, Suzanne (2003). New York Streetscapes: Tales of Manhattan's Significant Buildings and Landmarks. Harry N. Abrams. p. 418.
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Jordan (conjure doctor)

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Morris–Jumel Mansion; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • (Reviewing ALT3) QPQ checks out. Hook is interesting. Source checks out, is mentioned in article, is sourced in article, as well as in linked source. Article in good condition. Everything seems good to go! Generalissima (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Morris–Jumel Mansion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewing this article now. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs)[reply]

Reviewer: Cielquiparle (talk · contribs) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Prose is very clear and accessible. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Prior issue I raised re: captions has been addressed. Should Earle Cliff be bolded? Not a deal-breaker, just thought I'd raise it. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) There are tons of references, meticulously cited. Unfortunately the citation methods aren't entirely consistent within the article. Is it the case that this article is citing books one way, and periodicals in another? Having given it some thought, I'm not convinced that that is a stable solution for this article in the future. Update: This has been improved. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Includes inline citations to reliable sources, handled with care. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) There are citations throughout, sometimes multiple citations for a single claim; even the Notes section has footnotes for every sentence. The photographs on Commons have reasonably transparent attribution with clear date stamps, etc. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Earwig says a violation is "unlikely" and in the few instances where there were 20+% matches, they generally turned out to be common phrases or long titles of books. Spotcheck of several other sources showed no evidence of close paraphrasing. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Very thorough coverage of historical periods from 1765 to present. Interesting to view American history through the lens of this house (although it seemed like the Civil War just happened somewhere way in the distance). Also includes sections on its more recent history as a museum and a separate section on its architecture. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Article seems very focused on the history and architecture of the mansion, as well as its architecture and modern operation as a museum. Architecture sections for old buildings like this sometimes give me pause, because you need to make sure that claims made in older sources aren't presented as though they are necessarily currently true. But this seems to be carefully handled in that section. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Article is neutral in tone, covering centuries of various disputes and changes in ownership. Section on Eliza Jumel is covered sensitively without overegging her eccentricity. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Comment Result
    Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The images are either CC BY-SA 4.0 (with significant contributions from Beyond My Ken and CaptJayRuffins and others) or Public Domain. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Would be better if every external shot of the mansion had a date indicated, given the long history of the building and significant changes (and deterioration) over time. (Not sure if I like look of the caption "(2014)" in parentheses in the infobox, but at least the year is stated there.) Update. This was fixed. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass Congratulations and great work on an informative and entertaining article about American history from the lens of the Morris–Jumel Mansion.

Discussion[edit]

Thanks for the comments so far @Cielquiparle. Here are my responses:
  • For citation style, I generally put a {{cite book}} or {{cite report}} citation in the "Sources" section if two or more page ranges are cited. I've now moved all of the book and report cites to the Sources section regardless of how many times they're cited. All other types of citations remain in the "Citations" section.
  • For the captions, I've added some dates to the captions that didn't have them yet.
– Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Epicgenius. I will give it a couple more read-throughs and likely pass soon. Your writing in general is so clear I don't really anticipate any issues. But if I had to make a picky comment, it's this sentence I don't like: He entered the house on the night of September 14–15, 1776; the exact date and time of his arrival is unclear. Do you mean the exact time of his arrival is unclear? Or do you mean the date is also unclear because it may have been before midnight or after midnight? If that's the case, I think it's enough to say "time" and not "date" because the date is right there. Otherwise I start wondering if "entering the house" is somehow different in meaning from "arrival", or if he might have arrived on another day completely (date unknown, possibly much earlier) but that the only record we have of his entrance into the house was September 14–15.) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morris–Jumel_Mansion&oldid=1215408589"