# Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive

This review is transcluded from Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
a sentence in the first paragraph would be helpful for placing the significance of these in context; also, date of construction could be included.  The location should be a separate sentence, Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive are a set of complementary residential subdivision stone entranceways built in ___ ; they are located in….
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
red link on lancet head arch
What is your point?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
it doesn't go anywhere. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you are saying there is a problem because the word is redlinked and you want the linkage removed. Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  23:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
the weather vanes are two stories high???  That needs clarification.
How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
the weather vane is two stories high? or it plus the entry building is two stories high?  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what the confusion is with the rewording to say it is two stories above the street grade.  This seems pretty unambiguous to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
significance of Christ the King church…is it also Tudor revival? (although has a Romanesque look to me).
I am not an architecture guy and do not know. The significance is that only three of the four corners for these entranceways have residential properties.  The fourth is a church.  How would you like this handled in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
just say that then.  Or at least make that clear.  Otherwise, it's just sort of hanging there, that on one corner there is a church, and I wondered if that was significant.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
first link in citations doesn't work
If you are talking about the main reference for the article, I think it is browser sensitive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
tried it in Firefox and IE--Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh that one.  It is a link that most NRHP listings have to a page where such listings can be searched.  You can not link directly to the proper search result with this page.  However, most readers of NRHP properties should be familiar with this page and the need to actually do the search from there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
bus riders, preferable over “customers” ….?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
References cited list.
As a National Register of Historic Places listing this has an application with a summary of many primary and secondary sources.  I do not have access to any of these sources to create a reference list. Thus, the vast majority of the text comes from the NRHP application.  I.E., what is in the notes section is all that I have to go by.  However, the main source is an WP:RS AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
more on significance of these?  The suburbanization of rural spaces in the 20s?    Why was this placed on the register over others?
I have added another link to Snyder, New York in this section.  The history of the development of this community is detailed there. I am not sure how much about the development is necessary here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  21:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
good, link to Snyder is good.  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me know if any of these suggestions makes sense (leave message on my talk page), and I'll come back and finish assessment.
--Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

six GA criteria:
According to the GA criteria, I'll pass this article as a good article.  Now I'm off to figure out how to change all the codes.
--Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Abandoned A note was left at my talk page about this review. I am not, and do not want to be, the good article review police, but since I have shown an interest in the past in following and maintaining good article reviews I feel qualified to make some executive decisions in this area. The good article process in general is supposed to be a lightweight approach to improving articles. This also applies to reassessment of that status. An individual review, which is supposed to be closed by the person opening it, should not be left to languish like this one has. Three years is frankly unacceptable to leave an articles status in limbo. Since this has for all attempts and purposes been abandoned I am going to close it as such and default to keeping the current status. If someone thinks this does not meet the [WP:GACR|criteria for good articles]] this close does not hold any prejudice against reopening another review. I would strongly suggest however that if you do not have the time or inclination to close it yourself you go the community reassessment route. AIRcorn (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I find that this article fails several GA criteria. In general, don't believe the writing quality meets the standard of criterion 1. It specifically fails criterion 1a for "respects copyright laws", as some parts of the article closely paraphrase the National Register nomination document, including replication of a few complete sentences. It fails criteria 3a and 3b in that (a) it fails to effectively address the main aspects of the topic in that it tells me almost nothing about the context that gives these subdivision entranceways historic interest (for example, the name of the subdivisions isn't even mentioned until late in the article, and then only in passing) and (b) it goes into extensive unnecessary detail about the traffic patterns at the intersection and the construction specifications of the entranceways, even while providing almost no information about the suburbanization that created the subdivisions that the entranceways were built to promote. --Orlady (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I missed this review. Please allow me a few days to look at this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I am rephrasing below as separate issues:
It specifically fails criterion 1a for "respects copyright laws", as some parts of the article closely paraphrase the National Register nomination document, including replication of a few complete sentences.
Are you talking about things other than the description of the elements of the structure?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It fails criteria 3a because it fails to effectively address the main aspects of the topic in that it tells me almost nothing about the context that gives these subdivision entranceways historic interest (for example, the name of the subdivisions isn't even mentioned until late in the article, and then only in passing).
(Since this statement was so similar, I have copied part of  my response from Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA2): Let me give a little personal flavor here. These structures were on my paper route when I was a young lass in the early 1980s.  My route was between Main Street and Harper Road (exclusive). Thus, I covered all of Livingston Parkway, all of Rankin Road, part of Smallwood Drive north of Harper and the north side of Main street surrounding these entranceways, which at the time was two houses on each side of the entranceways. IMO, these are not monumental structures in the sense that they don't serve as a monument to any notable development. They are more of a thematic historic place. No one from Snyder talks about historic developments beyond these entranceways. The application notes that these are "surviving examples of early twentieth-century Tudor Revival-Style suburban residential subdivision" and later notes that they are part of a "thematic grouping of entranceways and street furniture, including stone walls..." I.e., even the application only names the particular development in passing later. We are infact only summarizing the source correctly. On top of that, we are representing them as they are known to the locals (of which I am one).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It fails criteria 3b because it goes into extensive unnecessary detail about the traffic patterns at the intersection and the construction specifications of the entranceways, even while providing almost no information about the suburbanization that created the subdivisions that the entranceways were built to promote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have found the National Register document that provides the historical context that makes these entranceways historically significant. See http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/64500937.pdf . Among other things, that document tells about the country estates that were converted to residential subdivisions. Because the entranceways were built as marketing tools for the subdivisions, I think that the history of suburban subdivision development is a critically important part of the story to be told in these articles. One seemingly minor detail that I think is an important context is the information that Main Street at Smallwood Drive was one of the stops on the original electric trolley operated by the Buffalo and Williamsville Electric Railway Corporation beginning in 1893. As I'm sure you are aware, trolleys had a big role in fostering early suburbanization.  --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this the same document that you posted on the other GAR?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed it is. You will note that entranceways are a major topic in it. --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I am working on a history section for the Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard. I will add something similar here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


### Status query
Orlady, TonyTheTiger, what is the status of this reassessment, which has been moribund for nearly three years? Looking at the article I see that there is some issue with the references that certainly needs to be addressed without delay, but are there any issues that still need to be dealt with? If not, then once the references are fixed, this could be closed. Please let me know; I'm happy to help. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the issue with the ref.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It has been over a week, so I have taken the liberty of asking Nikkimaria to check the status of the close paraphrasing mentioned by Orlady to see whether it is still an issue, and once that is dealt with, either Orlady (if she returns) or Wizardman to review the other issues she raised. I don't feel comfortable just closing the reassessment, given the breadth of the issues that had been raised. I hope we'll be able to complete the reassessment, or at least get it to a point where it is reasonable to end it, in the next couple of weeks, though if it takes a month or so, then so be it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I've commented at Talk:Entranceway_at_Main_Street_at_Roycroft_Boulevard/GA2. Orlady (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Like I said over there, why don't we take these to the community reassessment window.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Orlady, thanks for responding at the other reassessment. As I noted there, right now, you're the reviewer, and this is an individual reassessment. As you clearly believe these articles do not meet GA criteria at the present time, it's up to you to delist them. (Instructions are at WP:GAR; I can take care of the technicalities if that part is a problem.) If you're not going to do that, then the other option is to close the reassessment with no action taken (effectively "kept"). (Again, I can take care of the technicalities.) If you don't want to make a decision but still want this pursued, then once your individual reassessments have been closed, a community reassessment could be opened, as TonyTheTiger mentions, but not while the individual ones remain open. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I was suggesting community since this has dragged on for 3 years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)