This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
I wasn't thinking of anything fancy -- just "1914 map of all district properties or their present locations except Sparta Cemetery, with east at the top of the map" or something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the Profile section lists the properties by type and then again by name. I think it would be better to combine these. Perhaps something like this: "They are associated with three estates: Beechwood, Rosemont, and Woodlea (now Sleepy Hollow Country Club); The Clear View School, a school complex; two religious properties: Saint Mary's Episcopal Church and Scarborough Presbyterian Church; and Sparta Cemetery, which dates back to before the Revolutionary War."
In the Beechwood section I think you can cut "notably" and "known as". If you can give the dates that the Vanderlip family owned the mansion that would be helpful; or at least the date Frank Vanderlip acquired it.
It was owned by many others; Vanderbilt is the notable owner associated with the house. Similarly, Lyndhurst is always associated with Jay Gould, even though many others owned it at different times.--ɱ(talk · vbm)02:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, something has to be retained to indicate that. How about "Beechwood is an estate built in the late 1700s; it was most notably the home of Frank A. Vanderlip and his family."? And for the filming location I still think you could make it "Beechwood was a filming location of the 1970 film House of Dark Shadows", though if you feel that's not an improvement that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the Clear View School section, the "main" link is to Scarborough Day School, but the text describes the original school as just the "Scarborough School". Shouldn't these match?
People use both names, and the school itself (I believe) has officially called itself by both names at different times. There's no reliable source for any of that, but the fact is that the names can be used interchangeably, it doesn't really matter.--ɱ(talk · vbm)02:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"It runs a day treatment program": substance abuse treatment? Or does this mean something else?
Suggest redlinking William Creighton; I found an obit of him in the American Quarterly Church Review that would suffice for a small article.
The obituary just seems to indicate that he was a minister who held various church positions and traveled around. I don't know if there's notability there.--ɱ(talk · vbm)02:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like Hutton's description of the service. I think you should give the year, and also give some indication of the nature of the source -- e.g. by saying "as described in a contemporary regimental history" or something like that.
"completed in 1895 and designed by": I think it would read more naturally to say who designed it before saying when it was completed.
Reworded. Would've done the above originally, but the 'designed by' segment is too long; it'd throw the 'completed' segment out of context.--ɱ(talk · vbm)04:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The opening section mentions 26 contributing buildings, which aren't explicitly listed. You could put this information in a table but that might end up just duplicating what's in the article, but is there any reason not to specify the buildings in the descriptive paragraphs?
There are seven big buildings noted. Unlike many (perhaps most) historic districts in a business district, consisting of rows of shops and banks, this historic district has these large properties. Essentially the other 19 'buildings' are just sheds, garages, gatehouses, and other minor features. The NRHP nomination form didn't even mention each of those buildings, it just describes the history and architecture of the major 7. Also, you can look at the Country Club's Commons category; that property alone has about a dozen other buildings on it.--ɱ(talk · vbm)04:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Mid-19th Century Revival": this is in caps as if it's a specific type of architecture but there's no link. Can it be linked?
I've copyedited your changes a little. I also figured out what I meant about the missing cite; it was the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Profile section that was uncited. The only fact that needed citing was that Rosemont was demolished, so I just copied the citations up from the sentence that said that further down. Everything now looks OK; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
