Talk:Chestertown Armory

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Chestertown Armory was the site of home basketball games for Washington College from 1934 until the 1950s?
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: will do qpq and find a better hook

5x expanded by Guerillero (talk). Self-nominated at 11:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC).

• Expanded by 5x, barely. Article is also long enough and Earwig doesn't reveal any problems. Hook is short enough, accurate and supported by in-line citation. Two issues to be resolved before this can be passed: (1) needs a QPQ, and (2) the hook is not particularly hooky, and you indicated that you would be willing to find a better hook. Ping me when these are done. Cbl62 (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero and Cbl62: Maybe a hook about it being planned to be turned into a bed and breakfast would be a better option? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero: You indicated on Aug 19 that you would do a QPQ and come up with a better hook. I'm still available if you want to do those things. Cbl62 (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's been over a week since the review, but despite two reminders a QPQ has not been provided. As such the nomination is marked for closure on technical grounds. The nomination can resume if a QPQ is provided and the hook issue raised above is addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was pinged by the reviewer 3 days ago. QPQ for you and alt 1 is below. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

ALT 1 ... that Washington College plans on turning the Chestertown Armory into a bed and breakfast?

Thank you. This is ready for a new review. @Cbl62: Can you take another look at this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Guerillero: QPQ is done, but the alt1 hook isn't supported by the source. The source does not say that there is a "plan" to convert the armory into a B&B. (A "plan" is "a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.") The article describes more of a generic rumination/discussion: "The college has had discussions with several interested parties about eventually converting the approximately 20,700-square-foot armory building into a bed and breakfast." Accordingly, and as phrased, alt1 is not accurate. Cbl62 (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

ALT 1a ... that Washington College is exploring turning the Chestertown Armory into a bed and breakfast?

ALT 2 ... that the Chestertown Armory is officially named after a Chestertown, Maryland resident who landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day?

ALT 3 ... that the Maryland Army National Guard used the Chestertown Armory from 1932 until it was declared surplus in 2005?

• Do any of these three alts please you, Cbl62 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not one of pleasing me, but rather one of accuracy. Alt 1a is accurate and sufficiently hooky. Alts 2 and 3 are OK as well (though less hooky IMO). I did fix the typos in alts 2 and 3. Cbl62 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Guerillero (talk · contribs) 19:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

First look

Lead

? Consider changing "After the 115th Infantry Regiment" to "When the"

? Consider changing "to Washington College in 2013. Since then, it has stood vacant" to "to Washington College in 2013; since then, it has stood vacant"

@Guerillero: Hoping to wrap this up soon. Are you against these two suggestions?

The ping never went through and work has been crazy. Let me try to knock this out this weekend. Both of these seem reasonable --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Guerillero: The article has not been edited since May 5. I am hoping to complete the review. Bruxton (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Architecture

? Since we are describing a building we should probably use more details from citations 2 (there is more info about the building in there). Maybe other sources which describe the building or design?

? I might also consider changing the name of the section to design and consider moving the section below the planning section so that it is chronological.

I was following the general format of recent FAs such as Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

? Do we know who the architecture or designer was? Looks like Carl is not the the architect? It looks like from the source he was the general contractor/builder - maybe that too should be spelled out in the article.

A name has appeared in the local paper in editorials starting in 2022, but I can't find it in contemporaneous sources or in the reporting part of the paper --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

? This sentence should be rewritten "After a year, due to trouble securing plans, Maryland awarded contract to erect the building Carl Schmidt", It is missing words. Also I think we need more context about the "trouble". I also do not like the use of "due to".

"Owning to delay in securing plans" is all the Wilmington Journal says --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Planning and construction

? You could Consider US$$50,000 at first occurrence. Note that is not required by MOS:$ but I generally do it.

No. The article makes it clear that the subject is within the United States --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

? Consider whether this section can be developed into more than the three sentence with other sources.

I will dig some more, but 1930s newspapers are the best sources we have and they don't say much --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

National Guard use

? Consider 3,700 square foot should be hyphenated - but better than that would be a conversion template: 3,700 sq ft (340 m²)

 Done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Transfer and Washington College ownership

? In this sentence "In 2013, the Chestertown Armory was transferred to Washington College.[19] The structure continues to sit vacant." - there is no setup for when or how the building was first left vacant. Consider adding the information.

? Consider rewriting "studies of the building showing extensive mold in the building that would make remediation unfeasible." to "studies of the building revealed extensive mold in the building that would make remediation unfeasible."

? Consider a hyphen for "25-day"

These also need to be addressed. Bruxton (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Units

? This section is not cited. I think we need a citation here.

I think it is just a rehash of the national guard section --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Can you add a citation here, I think it is needed Bruxton (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton: You can fail this. Real life has been crazy busy. Thank you for you time review this article. I will make the changes in the fall and resubmit. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. We were close. Bruxton (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Images

Y Two images in the article and both appear to be properly licensed and free.

Y captions are short, descriptive and appropriate

Copyright

Y Earwig does not alert to plagiarism.

Y Citation 2 checks out

Y Citation 5 checks out

Y Citation 11 checks out

Y Citation 13 is offline AGF

Y Citation 18 checks out

? Please see that all of the relevant details have beenWP:MINEd from the sources in the RS.

Review table

Status:  Reviewing...

33% reviewed

   

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.

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.