Talk:Canterbury Castle (Portland, Oregon)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 03:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Prose review

• Can this fact be blended in earlier? It seems tacked on: "The property had also been designated as a Portland Historic Landmark." Perhaps the time frame of the Portland designation can be found.

Here is the problem: I cannot determine when the site was added to the list or when it was (if it was) removed from the list. I can only find the July 2010 list which includes Canterbury Castle (keep in mind the house was demolished in 2009). Since the timing here cannot be confirmed, I went with "The property had also been designated as a Portland Historic Landmark" to recognize the designation in past tense since the house is no longer in existence (though it could still be listed as a Portland Historic Landmark?). In terms of flow, this statement is provided after noting the listing and delisting on the NRHP, which seems appropriate to me. If you have any other thoughts or suggestions on this, I'd be interested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw on one Portland Historic Landmark PDF from 2009 that they consider any National Register structure in Portland to be a historical landmark, but the same source shows a list of structures belying this assertion, with check marks showing whether a structure is NR or PHL, and some structures are clearly NR but not PHL. It's a mess. I agree that the information about PHL should be in the article and that it is difficult to put a more encyclopedic twist on it. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Any and all direct quotes need to be followed by a reference at the end of that sentence, at the least. One quote needing such a cite is "buttressing wing walls, cylindrical corner bays and a crenellated parapet of uncut stone". Another is "one-woman crusade".

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Spelling: "steal sash" is probably steel sash.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Signature of Frye's" might be more clear as signature touch of Frye's, or element, theme, etc.

Done. I went with "element". --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• In the article body, maybe "meant to evoke styling of Hollywood" could be "meant to evoke the styling of Hollywood" or "meant to evoke 1920s Hollywood style". The point is to change it up from the lead section to the article body. Use different phrasing.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Check for present tense when past tense is required, such as "contains" which must be "contained".

Done? --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• For "ten feet in width" there should be a rough (3 m) metric equivalent.
• "Chimneys rose from fireplaces on the house's west hall as well as a centrally-located furnace." The chimneys sound like they are rising from the house also from the furnace. The furnace should join the fireplaces earlier as another thing requiring a chimney.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Who owned the house after Frye left bankrupt? Somebody had to open it up to tourists.

Not sure. I tried to incorporate as much ownership information and chronology as possible based on information available in sources. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete "would": "The house would became known".

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think "battled costly landslide prevention efforts" could be clearer as "battled to pay for costly landslide prevention efforts".

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Land slides should be landslides.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Surely the tile saved by Stansel was 20th century tile, so rather than "Aztec designs" it would have been tile with neo-Aztec designs. Right? Art Deco has a lot of neo-this and neo-that, for instance neo-Mayan or neo-Babylonian.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• You could be safe in redlinking Piggott's Castle. Help build the encyclopedia per WP:REDLINK.

Done. I will assume Piggot's Castle is the common name of the building. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• You could swap 21 for twenty-one.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

--Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I will check on too-close paraphrasing when I get a better internet signal. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Checklinks reports a dead NPS page but I found it just fine by clicking on it. External links are good. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Images are good, uploaded to Commons from Flickr correctly. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do any sources say why or when the alternate name Arlington was used, and by whom? Arlington Castle should be a redirect.

I assume because the house was located in the Arlington Heights neighborhood of Portland. This is an inference, so rather than making this statement I just included the location of the house (Arlington Heights) in the Description section of the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

--Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking time to conduct a review and offer suggestions. Please let me know if any concerns still need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I created a redirect from Arlington Castle. I accept that sources do not cover all the questions I brought up, that the article is as complete as it can be at this point. The article is now listed GA. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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.