The article is comprehensive, and having been peer-reviewed is very close if not already at GA level. However, as I have noticed that it was previously proposed for FA as well, I will also make suggestions for improvement which go beyond the GA criteria.
Thank you very much for reviewing. I could not get anyone to finish the review at FA. I will address these suggestions over the next week. I am in the Hurricane zone, and may not have power starting tomorrow.
TwoScars (
talk)
21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
For broad coverage would be useful if the square in which the building is located could be described in more detail. Was it a lawn from the beginning? From old pictures it appears that it might have been different
12. For due weight it probably should have its subsection, given that each memorial within the square has one.
Will work on that. The site was originally wilderness. First the original courthouse was built, then the current one. The pictures in your link are of the current version.
TwoScars (
talk)
21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Site area: the text states that "A public square was to be located on 1 acre", while the infobox is indicating "Area 1.5 acres". Measuring it on Google Earth the 1.5 acres appears as about right, so we need an explanation as to when and how the area was increased.
Maps: the relevant maps for this article would be a map of Hartford City showing the location of the courthouse and the provided site plan. The maps of the state and county are much less relevant here and are pushing the more relevant illustrations to the bottom of the article. I would suggest removing the state map at least, and replace it in the infobox with the site plan.
Will do this after cleaning the diagram. The state map was original to the article. I thought the county map was appropriate for the History discussion where Montpelier wanted the county seat to be located there—I just could not get it to fit in the History section. Plan to remove it.
TwoScars (
talk)
21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Replacing the state map will take longer than expected because of the NRHP template. This is not a simple swap of images. I will have to do some research and testing to possibly do this.
TwoScars (
talk)
02:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
In terms of consistency I think it would be desirable for all courthouse articles to have more relevant maps, either showing the urban area in which are located (site plan) or the area for which the court is responsible, in this case the county. So I changed the infobox map with the county map, and agree with you that it does a much better job. --
ELEKHHT04:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Site plan/diagram: this is a nice and clear diagram, very useful for the article. It could be even better if further simplified, by removing the blue box in the centre and shortening the label to "Blackford county courthouse". The gray square around the north sign also seems unnecessary.
size of arch(es): it would be much better to describe the arches as "large" and provide measurement, rather than referring to them as "enormous" or "huge".
Layout: the images don't always align with the relevant text. This is most problematic with the images of memorials. Maybe also one of the plaque images can be taken out, or the memorial images placed in a gallery row in the relevant section, to fix this.
The images align with a square monitor, but not with a widescreen. I can work on that if you believe most people use widescreens. Moving the diagram up to where the Indiana map is will also help.
TwoScars (
talk)
21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I have "doubled" some of the images using multiple image, and commented out two others—this should improve the issue for widescreen monitors while still working with square monitors.
TwoScars (
talk)
17:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Captions: for the monuments the caption could specify location (i.e. south-western corner). "Wall, artwork, and ceiling inside the Blackford County Courthouse" - which part of the building?
Building plans and sections would be very informative, but this is definitely not a GA requirement, and probably hard to find.
I have not been able to find a plan—plus I might not be permitted to load it into Wikimedia anyway. Since 9/11, floor plans for government buildings are sometimes "frowned upon". The text describes the inside of the building, as does the National Register Form.
TwoScars (
talk)
02:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted Thanks for the excellent improvements, happy to promote the article now. The site plan diagram can be uploaded on top of the existing file when improved. The article is also on a good way towards FA, but I suggest minor prose improvements might be possible, for which you could ask for help at
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. --
ELEKHHT20:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The article is comprehensive, and having been peer-reviewed is very close if not already at GA level. However, as I have noticed that it was previously proposed for FA as well, I will also make suggestions for improvement which go beyond the GA criteria.
Thank you very much for reviewing. I could not get anyone to finish the review at FA. I will address these suggestions over the next week. I am in the Hurricane zone, and may not have power starting tomorrow.
TwoScars (
talk)
21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
For broad coverage would be useful if the square in which the building is located could be described in more detail. Was it a lawn from the beginning? From old pictures it appears that it might have been different
12. For due weight it probably should have its subsection, given that each memorial within the square has one.
Will work on that. The site was originally wilderness. First the original courthouse was built, then the current one. The pictures in your link are of the current version.
TwoScars (
talk)
21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Site area: the text states that "A public square was to be located on 1 acre", while the infobox is indicating "Area 1.5 acres". Measuring it on Google Earth the 1.5 acres appears as about right, so we need an explanation as to when and how the area was increased.
Maps: the relevant maps for this article would be a map of Hartford City showing the location of the courthouse and the provided site plan. The maps of the state and county are much less relevant here and are pushing the more relevant illustrations to the bottom of the article. I would suggest removing the state map at least, and replace it in the infobox with the site plan.
Will do this after cleaning the diagram. The state map was original to the article. I thought the county map was appropriate for the History discussion where Montpelier wanted the county seat to be located there—I just could not get it to fit in the History section. Plan to remove it.
TwoScars (
talk)
21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Replacing the state map will take longer than expected because of the NRHP template. This is not a simple swap of images. I will have to do some research and testing to possibly do this.
TwoScars (
talk)
02:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
In terms of consistency I think it would be desirable for all courthouse articles to have more relevant maps, either showing the urban area in which are located (site plan) or the area for which the court is responsible, in this case the county. So I changed the infobox map with the county map, and agree with you that it does a much better job. --
ELEKHHT04:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Site plan/diagram: this is a nice and clear diagram, very useful for the article. It could be even better if further simplified, by removing the blue box in the centre and shortening the label to "Blackford county courthouse". The gray square around the north sign also seems unnecessary.
size of arch(es): it would be much better to describe the arches as "large" and provide measurement, rather than referring to them as "enormous" or "huge".
Layout: the images don't always align with the relevant text. This is most problematic with the images of memorials. Maybe also one of the plaque images can be taken out, or the memorial images placed in a gallery row in the relevant section, to fix this.
The images align with a square monitor, but not with a widescreen. I can work on that if you believe most people use widescreens. Moving the diagram up to where the Indiana map is will also help.
TwoScars (
talk)
21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I have "doubled" some of the images using multiple image, and commented out two others—this should improve the issue for widescreen monitors while still working with square monitors.
TwoScars (
talk)
17:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Captions: for the monuments the caption could specify location (i.e. south-western corner). "Wall, artwork, and ceiling inside the Blackford County Courthouse" - which part of the building?
Building plans and sections would be very informative, but this is definitely not a GA requirement, and probably hard to find.
I have not been able to find a plan—plus I might not be permitted to load it into Wikimedia anyway. Since 9/11, floor plans for government buildings are sometimes "frowned upon". The text describes the inside of the building, as does the National Register Form.
TwoScars (
talk)
02:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Promoted Thanks for the excellent improvements, happy to promote the article now. The site plan diagram can be uploaded on top of the existing file when improved. The article is also on a good way towards FA, but I suggest minor prose improvements might be possible, for which you could ask for help at
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. --
ELEKHHT20:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply