# Talk:Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 00:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I will review the article within the next couple of days.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--ɱ (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


### Comments
The article is well-written, contains interesting information about Beechwood's history, expansion, and transformation into a condominium complex! It follows Manual of Style guidelines for sections, layout, words to watch and other GA well-written criteria. The content is verifiable, with inline citations to reliable, secondary sources. There is no evidence of original research. It focuses on the main aspects of the topic, without going into unnecessary detail. The article has been wonderfully expanded since this April, 2014 version. There's no evidence of edit-warring. The images are properly tagged. Your experience with GA articles shows - you made the review an easy one!


#### Style/layout/images
#### Content
##### Close paraphrasing
I know that this might have occurred due to contributions by another editor, but based upon this check of one web page, please check for Close paraphrasing issues with that web source (the others are fine) and the books. Here's one example:
main house to three condominiums and built an additional 34 units on the property the rolling lawns of the estate that were once used (NYT)
components for three condominiums and built an additional 34 condominium units on the property description edit the 80 acre 32 ha private parkland was (Wikipedia)
I have checked this. Various users have different opinions and recommendations on how much can match up; in this case seven words match up. That's no cause for concern, and it falls well below my standards against plagiarism.--ɱ (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting response, when you say you've checked this - what do you mean?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can safely say that all of the text from before I started editing here has been altered for better wording and integration. And while I was writing the rest of it, I was careful to make sure that nothing was too close to the original source. Do a couple spot checks if you'd like; I encourage it.--ɱ (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To delve into one of the items on the dupe report,
The article says:
In the intro: "A developer purchased it in the 1980s, restoring and splitting the house for three condominiums; 34 additional condominium units were then built on the property, and the estate remains as a condominium complex"
In the history section: "In the early 1980s, the estate was sold to a developer who restored the house and split it into its original components for three condominiums and built an additional 34 condominium units on the property."
The New York Times article says: "In the early 1980's, the 33-acre estate was sold to a developer who converted the main house to three condominiums and built an additional 34 units on the property."
Analysis
There are some tweaks that can be made to the intro, but it's definitely better. The real issue is with the statement in the history section where the difference between the NYT and Wikipedia articles are minimal

"In the early 1980s, the 33-acre estate was sold to a developer who restored converted the main house and split it into its original components for to three condominiums and built an additional 34 condominium units on the property."
Suggestions
Intro: "The property is now a 37-condominium complex as the result of a development project that began in the 1980s." (Comment: The order of some of the words are changed, it's a summary, and is differentiated a bit from the info that will be read in the history section.)
History: "Three condominiums were built during a transformation of the mansion in the 1980s. A later expansion resulted in a total of 37 condominiums on the property's 33 acres.
You may very likely have a different approach for how you'd like to reword the sentences - but at least you have a couple of examples to consider.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change to the article, because I thought that would probably resolve 3 duplicate hits on the report. Of course, feel free to word them, though, as you'd prefer. The only remaining sentence that needs to be looked at on the dupe report is:
"...the small... stone gazebo built by the Vanderlips is occasionally used for wedding ceremonies." (article)
"A small, moated stone gazebo built by the Vanderlip family has also been preserved and is sometimes used for wedding ceremonies." (New York Times)
That will finish off the web sources, and just leave the books to check. You may question whether this is close paraphrasing, but by definition it appears to be. If you disagree, though, we can definitely ask for a third opinion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your help so far. With the gazebo sentence, I kept all of the important information: 'gazebo', 'stone', 'small', 'built by Vanderlips', and 'sometimes used for wedding ceremonies'. The only similarity with the NYT sentence is how those facts are arranged within the sentence, and I don't think there's any better way to arrange those simple descriptive facts and still be concise. There can be exceptions to the plagiarism/close paraphrasing rules if it's a simple statement of facts like that.--ɱ (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at three options / approaches:

The Vanderlip's stone gazebo is sometimes the site for wedding ceremonies. (changed order)
Beechwood, named for the estate's trees, is the site of wedding ceremonies, which feature the stone gazebo built by the Vanderlips. (integrated other info)
The formal gardens and stone gazebo, erected by the Vanderlips, have been preserved and feature in wedding ceremonies that occur on the property. (integrated info)
Of course, again, feel free to reword any of these that best suit you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think those options are needlessly wordy such that a GOCE reviewer would likely cut it back down to how it is now, but I'll take it. Thanks for your help.--ɱ (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I encourage you to reword the sentence any way that you would like to as long as it's not a close paraphrasing issue. In the meantime, I'm glad that you brought up the Guild of Copy Editors because this might be a good opportunity to bring them in to make sure that the suggestions that I brought up do address close paraphrasing.
In addition, there are still the books. Based upon the comments that there aren't close paraphrasing issues when there was a report that says that there are concerns, I'm a little leery about going on blind faith, but their input might be helpful there, too. I was also given the name of someone who might help us out or the talk page for close paraphrasing. I'll check around and see if we can get someone to help us out.
We're so close to getting this moved to GA pass - it would be great to make that happen soon.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It made sense to go directly to the Close paraphrasing folks, so I posted a request at WP talk:CP Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion) - resolving Close paraphrasing concerns--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Apparently we're not that close if you want to check all of those print sources, and invite others in to review. They're also going to find more 'issues' to be fixed with rewording and rearranging, even if you brought them in solely to check for paraphrasing. Honestly I'm tired of all this. GA reviews are not meant to be extensive endeavors, I know that from experience and the GA instructions and guidelines. If you'd like, sometime I can scan to you the pages from Cheever's book, and around October 18 when I'm back in the village, I can probably scan to you the rest of the print sources. Beyond that, I'm really finished here.--ɱ (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. This has dragged out so much longer than I expected, too - even with what I thought were very easily solvable close paraphrasing issues.
I think we probably are close. It's just that there has been reluctance to admit and resolve the close phrasing issues, for the things I knew were issues, it's hard know how to feel comfortable that there aren't any other issues for the books. If I am being hypervigilant, which is the impression that I'm getting from you, their input will help square that away so that I better understand how far to go / not go.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion it does not cross the line. it's ok. Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I will pass the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


#### Further reading
The discussion is essentially closed. There was a suggestion made to add content to the article about Eleanor Roosevelt's connection to the mansion, but whether it's added or not doesn't affect the review.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


#### Side items
#### General comments
### Approach
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "1952history":
From Scarborough Historic District: Our Village: Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. 1902 to 1952. Historical Committee of the Semi–Centennial. 1952.
From Briarcliff Manor, New York: Our Village: Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. 1902 to 1952. Historical Committee of the Semi–Centennial. 1952. OCLC 24569093.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

fixed.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph under the History section says:

Benjamin and Ann Folger were among the earliest residents, and named their residence "Heartt Place". In the 1830s, Folger deeded the estate to a self-proclaimed prophet, Robert Matthews, who believed himself to be the resurrected Matthias of the New Testament.[8](p18)
The attribution is

8. Cheever, Mary (1990). The Changing Landscape: A History of Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough. West Kennebunk, Maine: Phoenix Publishing. ISBN 0-914659-49-9. LCCN 90045613. OCLC 22274920. OL 1884671M.
However, The Kingdom of Matthias by Paul E. Johnson and Sean Wilentz on pages 121-122 claims that

...Folger would transfer Heartt Place to Elijah Pierson...Pierson then immediately leased the property to Matthias for nintey-nine years, at a rent of one dollar a year.
Along with Ben Folger, Elijah Pierson was a member of Matthias' cult. He was the person Matthias was accused of murdering. The book offers the following citation:

Westchester County Registry of Deeds, Deedbook 53-368, microfilm, SLC.
Because I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia and I have don't know what should be done here, I'm just writing this talk section so that someone who knows what they're doing can hopefully resolve this.
Mathwriter2718 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)