The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 14:20, 6 August 2016 [1].
This article illustrates the architecture and history of the locally-notable historic residence of Valley View in Romney, West Virginia. The article is written in the same style and layout used in other successful Featured Articles written about places and organizations in Hampshire County, West Virginia: Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Romney Literary Society. I welcome your guidance and suggestions, and I look forward to working with you throughout this process to improve and promote this article to Featured Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Hi, West Virginian.
Lead
History
Geography
Architecture
See also
References
Bibliography
External links
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replyComment: I've started to read through, and will in due course post a list of comments on prose etc.. In the meantime, there is a slight issue concerning the initial grant of land in 1649. Your Zimmerman source (p.8) says that the grant in 1649 was made by "King George III", an obvious error (George didn't become king until 1760), so I'd be inclined not to cite this fact to that source. There is a further problem in stating that the 1649 grant was made by "Charles II of England", as Charles was not recognised as England's king until the Restoration in 1660. Any grant of land made by him as a putative king in 1649 would have had no legal basis, a fact recognised in your William and Mary Quarterly source, which states "the grant remained without force till 1662" when Charles renewed it. The complex history of the grant between 1662 and 1688 is somewhat glossed over in the article, as the W&M source indicates, and I would recommend some rewriting of the first History paragraph, to clarify the picture. (Do you have JSTOR access to the full W&M article: If not, I'll help you out). Brianboulton ( talk) 12:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Comments from Noswall59: I was going to mentioned the issue with Charles II that Brian has pointed out above, but I see I have been beaten to it! I do have a few other qualms:
As an overall comment, the history section seems very thorough. I wish I had the sources to provide such a detail and comprehensive overview of land ownership on my side of the pond. The prose was clear and engaging, and I felt that the odd biographical detail did not detract from the narrative. I have not had such a detailed look at the other sections, but they also appear to be high-quality. I am leaning support pending the resolution of the Charles II issue and replies to my comments above. I will need to check the other sections more thoroughly as well. All the best, — Noswall59 ( talk) 09:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC). reply
Closing comment -- having seen no activity from the nominator here or on WP in general for a couple of weeks, I'm going to archive this review. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 14:20, 6 August 2016 [1].
This article illustrates the architecture and history of the locally-notable historic residence of Valley View in Romney, West Virginia. The article is written in the same style and layout used in other successful Featured Articles written about places and organizations in Hampshire County, West Virginia: Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Romney Literary Society. I welcome your guidance and suggestions, and I look forward to working with you throughout this process to improve and promote this article to Featured Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Hi, West Virginian.
Lead
History
Geography
Architecture
See also
References
Bibliography
External links
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
05:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replyComment: I've started to read through, and will in due course post a list of comments on prose etc.. In the meantime, there is a slight issue concerning the initial grant of land in 1649. Your Zimmerman source (p.8) says that the grant in 1649 was made by "King George III", an obvious error (George didn't become king until 1760), so I'd be inclined not to cite this fact to that source. There is a further problem in stating that the 1649 grant was made by "Charles II of England", as Charles was not recognised as England's king until the Restoration in 1660. Any grant of land made by him as a putative king in 1649 would have had no legal basis, a fact recognised in your William and Mary Quarterly source, which states "the grant remained without force till 1662" when Charles renewed it. The complex history of the grant between 1662 and 1688 is somewhat glossed over in the article, as the W&M source indicates, and I would recommend some rewriting of the first History paragraph, to clarify the picture. (Do you have JSTOR access to the full W&M article: If not, I'll help you out). Brianboulton ( talk) 12:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Comments from Noswall59: I was going to mentioned the issue with Charles II that Brian has pointed out above, but I see I have been beaten to it! I do have a few other qualms:
As an overall comment, the history section seems very thorough. I wish I had the sources to provide such a detail and comprehensive overview of land ownership on my side of the pond. The prose was clear and engaging, and I felt that the odd biographical detail did not detract from the narrative. I have not had such a detailed look at the other sections, but they also appear to be high-quality. I am leaning support pending the resolution of the Charles II issue and replies to my comments above. I will need to check the other sections more thoroughly as well. All the best, — Noswall59 ( talk) 09:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC). reply
Closing comment -- having seen no activity from the nominator here or on WP in general for a couple of weeks, I'm going to archive this review. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply