# Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard

This review is transcluded from Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! Vicenarian (T · C) 19:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


### Pre-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews
No comments prior to review. Vicenarian (T · C) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


### GA REVIEW - Pass
Great article. Compliance with MoS (see note below). One main source, but it is the full NRHP application, which is typical for an NRHP site. Also uses the NRIS. Both reliable. Sources used well, and cited throughout. No original research. Broad in coverage, concise and detailed, but not overly so. Neutral in tone. Stable. Well-illustrated.
I made several prose edits at points I thought needed clarification or simplification - but since I'm not as well versed in the location as you, Tony, if I've significantly alterted the meaning of the text, feel free to revert without mercy. Some of the language just seemed a bit tangled.
Great work!
Vicenarian (T · C) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


### Post-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/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 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) 22:48, 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 1b because much of the content in the lead section is not present anywhere else in the article. It fails criterion 2c, because the statement "There is no visible base and as of 2009, vertical alignment has been lost and the general condition is poor" is original research -- as no cited source is nearly as recent as 2009. 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 this subdivision entranceway historic interest (for example, the name of the subdivision isn't even mentioned until late in the article, and then only in passing) and (b) it goes into extensive unnecessary detail about the construction specifications of the entranceway, even while providing almost no information about the first wave of suburban development that created the subdivision it was built to promote. I've not yet been able to access the principal cited source, but I suspect (based mostly on writing style) that some of the language in the article may be closely paraphrased from the source. --Orlady (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do these work link WP:GACs where I have 7 days to get to these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the first time I've done a GA Reassessment, so I'm not well versed in the protocol, nor am I interested in enforcing arbitrary deadlines. My main concern is that the article doesn't appear to me to have the attributes that a Good Article is supposed to have. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
My only home internet right now is via a 2012 Google Chromebook that I just discovered does not support the plugins of the primary sources. Both my 2010 and 2013 HP laptops that I prefer to edit on are out for repair. I am suppose to talk to HP in the morning about my 2013 machine.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I just installed the proper version of Java on my primary computer to see the reference.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Below is my rearranged set of issues to address from above:
In general, don't believe the writing quality meets the standard of criterion 1. It specifically fails criterion 1b because much of the content in the lead section is not present anywhere else in the article.
I have reorganized the article so that part of the detail in the former WP:LEAD is now in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It fails criterion 2c, because the statement "There is no visible base and as of 2009, vertical alignment has been lost and the general condition is poor" is original research -- as no cited source is nearly as recent as 2009.
You are reading the citation incorrectly. The citation was dated 2005 and dated as retrieved in 2009. This is from page 3 of the 2009 2005 report. I have added quotes to the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I've re-checked the article and I've accessed the cited source (which I wasn't able to get at the time when I started this GA reassessment), and I've verified that you are the one who is reading this incorrectly. The citation correctly gives the date of the source as 2005. You have revised the article to quote the source as saying, on page 3, "There is no visible base and as of 2009, vertical alignment has been lost and the general condition is poor". That is not a valid quotation of the source. Not only was it written in 2005 (not 2009), but page 3 doesn't contain any "as of" date, and the other wording that you present as a quotation is slightly modified from the source. Additionally, if this were a valid quotation from the source, it would not be an appropriate quotation for Wikipedia to include because there's little or nothing in this quotation that could not be as effectively presented with original wording. Finally, this is an example of some content that may include unnecessary detail. --Orlady (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I made a typo above that is part of the issue. I have paraphrased the quote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It fails criteria 3a in that it fails to effectively address the main aspects of the topic in that it tells me almost nothing about the context that gives this subdivision entranceway historic interest (for example, the name of the subdivision isn't even mentioned until late in the article, and then only in passing)
Let me give a little personal flavor here. If you look at the map in this article you will see that there are three pairs of entranceway architectural structures in Snyder, New York on the National Register of Historic Places. The other structures that went on the NHRP on the same date are Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive. Two of 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 both sides 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). Honestly, the Roycroft entranceways are not part of my life history, but the library diagonally across the street from them is. It was my local library. Once upon a time, a kid had to go to a physical building to do research after school on some occasions. You may or may not be old enough to remember such days. My most notable moment at the Library was when another local kid told me Bucky Dent homered for the Yankees against the Red Sox as we were standing in that Library's parking lot. That is neither here nor there, but the article summarizes the sources and is probably agreeable in its depiction to most locals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I am aware of those other entranceways. In fact, I also started a GA review at Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2 (I notified you on your talk page). One thing I wondered about (but didn't mention in either GA review, until now) is whether it truly makes sense for Wikipedia to have two separate articles about entranceway structures in Snyder. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
WP should treat separate NRHPs separately.  If they wanted to make a historic district they could have done so (Darwin Drive has similar stone entranceways).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't accept your theory that individual listing on the National Register indicates independent notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Although not all of the properties in a National Register historic district need to be contributing properties, there needs to be some degree of continuity and connectedness to make a district. Lack of sufficient contiguity to constitute a single historical district does not indicate lack of sufficient relatedness to constitute a single encyclopedic topic. --Orlady (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K. even if the Darwin Drive Entranceways were also on the NRHP separately, I would argue that each entranceway be its own article. I have never seen merged NRHP articles even for geographically proximal properties.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
As for your personal connection to these entranceways, it's a charming story. However, we need to remember that the aspects of these entranceways that meant something to you as a child are not necessarily the same aspects that would mean something to an encyclopedia reader who didn't grow up in the neighborhood. Although I am a good bit older than you, I am not too old to remember the various places I liked to go as a child, and I know that the features of those places I considered important/memorable are not necessarily important/memorable from an adult perspective or in the context of history. In that vein, I happen to believe that the historical context of the suburban expansion that these entranceways promoted is far more important to encyclopedia readers than their proximity to your childhood library. --Orlady (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I guess we are fortunate that I did not map out my paper route in the order I attended to the houses of this neighborhood (just kidding). This article is not written from my recollection. I am writing about what I am finding in sources for the most part.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It fails criteria 3b in that it goes into extensive unnecessary detail about the construction specifications of the entranceway, even while providing almost no information about the first wave of suburban development that created the subdivision it was built to promote.
I've not yet been able to access the principal cited source, but I suspect (based mostly on writing style) that some of the language in the article may be closely paraphrased from the source.
I am not sure where the burden falls here. Do you have any content that you suspect as a copyright violation?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
As long as you are breaking my comments into bullets, don't forget criterion 3b regarding unnecessary detail.
As for close paraphrasing, now that I have a copy of your main source document, I see close paraphrasing in several places, including the passages "the entranceway's featured element is the nearly semi-circular random ashlar stone half-walls on Roycroft Boulevard's axis of symmetry, which is at a 22 degree angle to Main Street" and "the running portion of the wall has a continuous cast in place coping cap shaped at a 45 degree angle, which forms an attached buttress three quarters the height of the posts" (both from paragraph 2 on page 3 of the source). Other examples include "County engineer, George C. Diehl, was also associated with the development of this subdivision" and "original function of marking the vehicular and pedestrian entrance to the subdivision", which closely follow language in the last two paragraphs on page 3 of the source. --Orlady (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I viewed this earlier at the airport while waiting for my flight. I think I was confused. I was looking for page 3 from the document that you mention below. Now, I realize you are still talking about the article I was using all along.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate assistance paraphrasing architectural details that you are uncomfortable with (para 2 page 3).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 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. --Orlady (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I am unable to view this document. How does it differ from the one above from the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It's odd that you can't view that document. It's a normal PDF -- no need to deal with Java -- and it's only about 1 MB. Anyway, it's a National Register multiple property submission form entitled "Multiple Resources Associated with the Suburban Development of Buffalo, New York." It's a 28-page document that documents the history and significance of a collection of properties that ended up being individually listed on the National Register. The nomination forms that you used for these articles were abbreviated, compared with typical NRHP nominations, because much of the normal documentation was supplied in the multiple property submission. --Orlady (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I could not see them with Windows 8. I will get on my Chromebook and see.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I can see the file with my Chromebook. I will try to address related issues in the next few hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you comment on my progress thus far.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


### Reassessment status
This has been moribund for nearly three years. Since Orlady edits only infrequently these days, I am 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) 22:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Three years ago, I didn't think these deserved to be GAs, and I still don't.
One of my main concerns with these articles was (and still is) that they failed to effectively convey why anyone (other than a man who grew up in the neighborhood) might find interesting about the topic. These subdivision entryways were listed on the National Register for their collective significance in the history of suburbanization in the area, including the aesthetic they represented and how they helped to promote suburban living, not because of details like measured angles to the street or "poured concrete caps that aren't original." Futhermore, the relevant historical context for these entranceways isn't related to the founding of Williamsville and Amherst in 1811 and 1818, nor to the frequency of stagecoach service in the 19th century. The Multiple Property Submission has a wealth of information about the early 20th-century suburban development that these entryways were a part of, and how the entryways were sited for highly visibility and designed appeal to the aspirations of urban families. The writer of a Good Article ought to use some judgment in selecting content, rather than dumping in the first content they find. The other article (Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive) is in somewhat better shape than this one, because it focuses more on the salient aspects of its subject and less on insignificant details than this one does.
As for close paraphrasing, Java issues are currently preventing me from comparing these articles with the property-specific National Register nomination forms. Comparison with the MPS document (which I can access) finds a similarity of structure, but with wording that is noticeably different -- and manages to thoroughly distort the meaning of the source:
Source: In 1866, H. M. Brown began operation of the Buffalo, Williamsville and Clarence Omnibus Line, a horse-drawn stagecoach that offered daily service on Main Street until being displaced by the Buffalo and Williamsville Electric Trolley in 1893... The Buffalo and Williamsville Electric Railway Corporation's Electric trolley services began in 1893 between a wooden waiting room at Buffalo's Main Street and Bailey Avenue ... and Williamsville. Its 4.5 mile long track on the north side of Main Street carried a double-car trolley that ran as often as every twelve minutes in its heyday. Among its stops was the Audubon Terrace entranceway shelter at Smallwood Drive.
Both Articles: By 1866, Buffalo Street Railway Company built a street car system that ran on Main Street from Amherst to Buffalo. Daily stage coach service also began in 1866 along Main Street and continued until it was displaced by an electric trolley in 1893, the track ran 4.5 miles (7.2 km) from Main and Bailey Avenue ... to the east with stops that included Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive.
IMO, making hash of the content from sources is at least as serious a problem as close paraphrasing. Orlady (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the difference between "making hash" and paraphrasing. How about we take these two over to the community reassessment window.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Orlady, thanks for responding. 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) 20:14, 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)