Talk:Ebenezer Avery House

Ebenezer Avery House 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: July 7, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal 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.

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 01:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are some thoughts. The article is short and not particularly comprehensive; Joseph Webb House, for example, is illustrated with pictures (which it seems one should be able to find/take of this building), it gives a comprehensive history (this article has several gaps in the history, most notably from the 1880s to 1970s), and it centers on the building itself, rather than the historical events that took place there (e.g., this article's third paragraph in the history section belongs in a different article). Also, expound on who Ebenezer Avery was. Finally, the article relies heavily upon The Day; while other sources may not exist, it is a consideration. Right now, this article does not meet the GA criteria, and as such, I cannot pass it at this time. I will, however, leave the review open until the weekend in case you can update it. Go Phightins! 01:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on several points. Images are not part of the GA criteria - I am not able to get a photo and I checked Google and Flickr. I'll look for some more information, but I do not think a bunch of sources to The Day should really count against me here. And everything I see all relates to this house's importance stems from the battle and how it housed the wounded. This isn't a NRHP property, so I am significantly more limited in what's out there, no survey shows up as a result - but I'll ask the association for some publications. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got some more information, but I am running up on empty I think with this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else needed, reviewer? Seems like everyone disappeared here. Wizardman 03:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, crap. This completely slipped my mind; just got back from two weeks away. I'll add it to my list ... Go Phightins! 20:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, this looks fine. Passing. Go Phightins! 19:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]