# Talk:Avery House (Griswold, Connecticut)

In case it was not clear from my edit summary, Avery House and Avery Homestead are two different places, over 20 miles apart. I have restored the article to the best of my ability, but I confess to twitching the coordinates: I do not know how to translate the co-ords in the NRHP documents. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there 71.234.215.133. I've reverted your edits as they are the same place given the only reference provided. Can you cite something to show that these are two different locations? Unfortunately the NRHP as a resource is "somewhat inaccurate" at best, so while I don't think you're wrong we do need something to show that it isn't the same place. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Avery Homestead. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This house is by far the most difficult one to get information on. The records for it are so sparse and the nomination form is so basic - but this house has so many unknowns and I personally checked a giant wall-sized map of the area to confirm and validate the nomination's information. Sometimes they don't pan out, sometimes they do - but I contacted the Connecticut state library and they could not find anything more substantial on this house. Sad to say, but I think this all there is on it. I couldn't even dig up some newspaper articles about it.... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Avery House (Griswold, Connecticut)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 23:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. I see you have many articles up for review at WP:GAN. Same with any of the reviews I do for you, just want to point out that I'm slow with content-related editing during the week, so please bear with me. I should have feedback for you tonight, however. — MusikAnimal talk 23:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Concerns

Same as with Greens Ledge Light, the NRHP compiler is not introduced beyond mentioning their last name. "McMahon writes, "A handsome..." should probably read like "Mary McMahon, who prepared the inventory form for the National Register of Historic Places, wrote "A handsome..." Maybe this is some widespread convention I'm unaware of, but as a reader I do wonder who the person is.
Under Owners, "New London" should probably link to New London, Connecticut.
Under Importance "Mahon writes that "[t]he interior". I'm assuming we meant McMahon, not Madon.
Once the above are addressed I will happily pass the nomination. — MusikAnimal talk 23:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Y Just as with Greens Ledge Light, I have addressed the outlined concerns as the nominator has not responded to inquiries and it's been over 10 days since the review was put on hold. I hereby promote this article to Good Article class. I'll say it again... I hope to see nominator return to Wikipedia and improve more articles like they have here. Hats off to them for their hard work! — MusikAnimal talk 00:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)