Talk:Valley View (Romney, West Virginia)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ammodramus (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some hasty initial thoughts...

Y I'd be inclined to pull people's dates out of the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of key information. The fact that Big Jim built the house in 1855 is key; the fact that he was born in 1796 and died in 1858 is much less critical.

Done! -- Caponer (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Could I suggest moving the sentence re. NRHP from the first paragraph of the lead down to the third paragraph, either at the beginning or end? That way, we'd have a paragraph on location, one on history, and one on architecture. I'd be inclined to move the Mind Garage sentence to a fourth paragraph of its own, or even to remove it from the lead (since the article on "Circus Farm" doesn't indicate that it achieved a high position on the charts).

Done! Great suggestion--the lead flows much better now! -- Caponer (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y I'm a little uncomfortable with the adverb in "have carefully restored the historic residence", in both the lead and the body. It feels a bit peacocksome to me, particularly since it's sourced to a document written by the restorer himself. Would it hurt the article if we pulled the "carefully"?

Removed! -- Caponer (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YIn the "History" section, is there a reason why "South Branch Survey" is always in quotes? It seems reasonable on first mention, as introducing a term; but it seems unnecessary (and typographically distracting) afterward.

I concur--the quotes were unintentionally left with the term during my drafting of the article. I've left the quotes on the first mention in both of the lead and prose, and removed the quotes from subsequent mentions. -- Caponer (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I look at it, I question whether we even need quotes around the first use of SBS. The caps make it pretty clear that we're talking about something's name, and not just any old South Branch survey.

Could we do likewise with "Collins Tract", "Casey Tract", etc.? I see that both words are capitalized, with no quote-marks, in Zimmerman. I think it'd be easier on the reader's eye if we followed that convention here, unless there's a reason for doing otherwise.

That definitely makes sense to me! I've removed the quotes from all mentions of the tracts! -- Caponer (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y I rewrote the second paragraph of "Background" to get rid of a dangling modifier: in its original form, it read as though John Collins was sold by Thomas Collins to James Gregg Parsons.

This works well, and reads much more clearly! -- Caponer (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YIn that second paragraph, I'd suggest putting the final sentence into a footnote, since it breaks the chronological order. I'd also tweak the phrasing a bit, to make it clear that it's not OR: rather than "it is likely that...", which seems like editorial voice, I'd phrase it something like "Hampshire County historian Selden Brannen suggests that..." I'd then combine the second and third paragraphs, keeping all the Collins material together.

I've made the above suggested edits, and just for clarification, the footnote statement was a statement made by historian Catherine Snider Long and cited by Brannon in his book. Excellent suggestion! -- Caponer (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YIs it correct to say that John Collins leased the property from Ld. Fairfax in 1749? From the talk about the deed later in that paragraph, it sounds like an outright sale. If it was a lease, when and how did the actual ownership change?

Collins actually purchased the lot from Lord Fairfax, and the source I utilized erroneously used the term leased, which I accidentally carried over from the source. I replaced leased with the neutral "acquired." -- Caponer (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second round

I'd intended to try to set this up strictly based on the GA criteria; but Caponer, if you're willing, I'll mix in my own suggestions for improving the article. Not all of these points will be GA-critical, so feel free to question any or all of them.

I'm working off this version of the article right now, so if I refer to "the seventh paragraph" or the like, this is where to look.

YI'd question whether quoting the lyrics of "Circus Farm" complies with Wikipedia's copyright policy. At WP:NFC, the section "Guideline examples/Acceptable use/Text" states that "[b]rief quotations of copyrighted text may be used..." and points to WP:QUOTE; this in turn stipulates "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted..." [italics in original]. It appears from the source cited that these are the complete lyrics of the song, which is certainly a "substantial portion". I'd be inclined to delete the lyrics quote myself; if you think it really needs to be kept, we should get it OK'd by one of Wikipedia's copyright experts.

I've taken the liberty of removing the quote box, as it's not necessary conveying the home's significance and history. Good call! -- Caponer (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YIn the citations to Zimmerman, the page number given appears to be the page of the PDF file. This conflicts with numbers actually printed on pages: for example, the fifth page of the PDF, which would presumably be "p. 5" in a citation, is headed "Section 7 Page 1". This could cause brief confusion (as it did for me). Could I suggest modifying the citations to something like "p. 5 of the PDF"; or, if that's too difficult to work with the templates, add a note to the Zimmerman entry in the "Bibliography" section, explaining what's meant by a page number?

I've added " of the PDF file" to the end of each page number listed in the Harvard internal citations. Does this work? While unrelated, I've been making your recommended changes here to the articles for Wappocomo (Romney, West Virginia) and Valley, West Virginia for consistency's sake. -- Caponer (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YThere are a few places where the use of "likely" conveys the impression of OR, although I don't think that's the case. In the "Parsons family ownership" section, fifth paragraph, "...it is likely that they helped with the house's construction". In the next paragraph, "Elizabeth Miller Parsons likely sold the house due to..." In the first paragraph of the "Geography" section, "Valley View farm likely utilized the Valley post office... as it was located..." Could I suggest more arm's-length phrasing for these, e.g. "It is thought that..." or "Historican John Smith suggests that..."?

I've fixed the identified uses of likely in the article, and I've copied the improved versions here:

"The Parsons family owned several slaves, so it is thought that they helped with the house's construction."

"Historian Catherine Snider Long suggests that Elizabeth Miller Parsons presumably sold the house due to the further financial toll caused by the war, from which the Parsons family was unable to recover."

"It is assumed Valley View farm utilized the Valley post office during its brief period of operation, as it was located 0.5 miles (0.80 km) south of the house."

I left an instance of likely in two sentences. "Rice surmises that James Parsons, Jr. relocated to the Collins Tract around 1829, the year of his marriage to Elizabeth Miller, and most likely lived in the Collins home before building his own house in the same location in 1855." and According to Zimmerman, "For Jim Parsons, Jr., a man with a distinguished family heritage, many children and a 'large circle of friends,' this message was likely a combination of an honored welcome to visitors and an assertion of wealth and status." (since it's used in a quote) -- Caponer (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about leaving the "likely" phrasing alone when it's used in direct quotes. I've done some minor (in my opinion, at least) tweakage on some of the other passages. Could you look at those and make sure that they're OK? Ammodramus (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The minor tweakage works! -- Caponer (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YThe second paragraph of section "Parsons family ownership" is kind of a chronological tangle, working its way backwards from J. G. Parsons to the settlement of the Parsons family in America, then jumping forward to JGP's birth and marriage, then working backward again up the Casey family tree. I'd suggest rearranging the material in the first two paragraphs of the section more chronlogically: start with the ancestral Parsons wading ashore in the New World, and move forward through Isaac Parsons to JGP's birth; begin a new paragraph in which you go chronologically forward from the proto-Caseys to the birth of Mary Catherine Casey; start a third paragraph with the Parsons-Casey marriage, have them raising their brood at Wappocomo, go through the purchase of VV by JGP (including the business about not knowing where the Collinses lived afterward), and have MCCP inherit Lot 21 (presumably in 1833, since that's when Nicholas Casey dies). I haven't tried writing this out myself to see how it'd work on the page, but you might want to experiment with something like that.

Alright, this suggestion makes the prose flow so much better throughout this section. I tried to faithfully incorporate these suggestions to the tee, and upon re-reading and reviewing it, I think I have. Please take a look and let me know if these requires any further edits from here. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my own hand at reorganizing this, up to the death of JGP. Does this work for you? You're definitely allowed to revert or modify my edit here. Ammodramus (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammodramus, that works much better! Mine was still a bit cumbersome, so I think this remedies that. No revert necessary. -- Caponer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this review is taking place in fits and starts; I'll see if I can devote a serious block of time to it tomorrow. I think we're definitely on course to a GA, but I'm afraid that progress toward it is going to be a bit stop-and-start at times. Ammodramus (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand, and I actually prefer this "fits and starts" approach, as it is much less daunting than having to make all the corrections and rewrites at once! Please, review at your leisure when time allows in your schedule. The article is on the right track! -- Caponer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third round

Have a bit of free time, and will try to get a few more points covered before I'm called away. I'm working from this version of the article

Y The illustration of Ld. Fairfax at Commons (File:ThomasFairfax6th.jpg) needs to be tagged with its US copyright status.

Done! Good catch. -- Caponer (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y I'm a little uncomfortable with one more thing in the first two paragraphs of "Parsons family ownership". In the first paragraph, Isaac Parsons owns a tract "which was adjacent to the Wappocomo property". This appears to be the first mention of Wappocomo in the article, and it doesn't explain the significance at all. Only in the second paragraph does Nicholas Casey built the Wappocomo house. Might it work better if we dropped "which was adjacent to the Wappocomo property" from the first paragraph, and then expanded the first sentence of the second paragraph to read "Lot Number 21, adjacent to Casey's property, from Ld Fairfax" or "Lot Number 21, adjacent to Lots 16 and 17, from LF"? Then the first mention of Wappocomo (and the Wikilink thereto) would be Nicholas Casey's building of the house.

Done! I've removed the first mention of Wappocomo, and moved the link down to when Nicholas Casey builds the house there. I've also moved down the mention of its being adjacent to Lot Number 20. -- Caponer (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y I'd lose the third sentence from the fifth paragraph of "Parsons family ownership" (paragraph describing division of property after JGP's death; sentence giving detail about Col. Isaac). It feels like a digression from the topic; and after a long sentence about Col. Isaac, the "His" that opens the fourth sentence seems to refer to him, making Big Jim his son; this creates confusion. I'd suggest dropping the sentence, though keeping the fact that Col. Isaac was JGP's youngest son by inserting it into the previous sentence: "...was devised to his oldest surviving son, Col. Isaac..."

Done! I also moved up the first mention of the three sons. -- Caponer (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Was Isaac, aetat. 33, a colonel at the time that he inherited the property? If not, or if there's uncertainty, it might be better to leave the rank out.

No problem there--his rank has been removed. -- Caponer (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth round

Thanks again for putting up with this on-again off-again review. I'll try to put in an hour or so this morning before I'm summoned away again. I'm now working off this version.

Just to mention it again, I'm mixing GA-criteria stuff with suggestions that, in one editor's opinion, would make the article run better, but that are emphatically not required for a GA ranking. If you disagree with any of my points, don't hesitate to say so.

Ammo, thank you for taking the time to conduct this thorough review. These have all been very worthwhile suggestions that have all led to the improvement of the article's quality--I'm very appreciative! -- Caponer (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y In the fifth paragraph of "Parsons family ownership", dealing with J. G. Parsons's will, would it be better to describe the sons's inheritances in order of their ages (as the sons are listed in the paragraph's first sentence)? Also, it feels odd to have Isaac's inheritance getting a sentence of its own, while David and Big Jim get combined in one sentence: the reader gets the impression that Isaac is the one we're going to follow, which isn't the case. I'd be inclined to go with three separate sentences; if the information's available, I'd include a brief description of Lot No. 13's location, since it's mentioned nowhere else in the article.

I've given each of the brothers their own sentence, and added information on David Parsons' land, which later became known as Hickory Grove. It will likely be one of my next NRHP articles. I've added two sources to confirm Hickory Grove's connection with David Parsons' previous ownership. -- Caponer (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y In the third-last sentence of the paragraph ("Rice surmises...") the mention of Big Jim's building the house in 1855 feels like we're getting ahead of the narrative flow. Might it work better to say something like "was living in the Collins home at the time of his father's death"?

I added the suggested bit above to the sentence, and made another sentence detailing Rice's assumed date of Parsons' occupation of Valley View. Let me know if this works. -- Caponer (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work better in chronological order: moved to Collins Tract ca. 1829, and was living there at the time of his father's death?

Perfect! I combined the last two sentences along the lines of what you laid out above: "Rice surmises that James Parsons, Jr. relocated to the Collins Tract around 1826, and was residing there at the time of his father's death." -- Caponer (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y The last two sentences of the paragraph, re. buildings and foundations currently on the property, don't really seem to fit there. I'd relegate that information to the "Ancillary structures" section.

I've moved and incorporated the ancillary structures information down the the AS section, and cut a few bits of superfluous information out. -- Caponer (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y In the last three paragraphs of the Parsons-family section, we've got several references to "Valley View" or "house at Valley View". Since the VV name was bestowed by Elizabeth Harrison, presumably after the Harrisons had acquired the property post-Civil War, it seems anachronistic to use it in 1855. Can we find alternate phrasings? In the second of these paragraphs, dropping "at VV" and simply referring to it as "the house" seems to work; in the third, I'd try something like "Big Jim built them a house across the SB Potomac from his own". I'm a little less sure on how I'd deal with the first mention, since we want to make it clear that the house he's building is the subject of the article. Maybe something like "the house that later became VV"? Or "the present-day VV house"? Any thoughts?

Excellent idea, and makes perfect sense. I've modified all mentions of Valley View before its naming by the Harmisons. -- Caponer (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns

Y A number of the sentences in this article appear to be taken verbatim, or with very minor modifications, from the Zimmerman source. For example, the article includes the sentence "The costly construction of the house at Valley View took a financial toll on the family, and Big Jim was only able to enjoy his home for three years before he died on October 14, 1858 from tuberculosis"; Zimmerman's version is "The costly construction took a financial toll on the family, and Big Jim was only able to enjoy his home for three years before he died in 1858 of tuberculosis." In the article, "Thomas Collins came into possession of Lot Number 20 by 1772 and resided there with his wife Elizabeth"; in Zimmerman, "John’s son Thomas came into possession of Lot #20 by 1772 and lived there with his wife Elizabeth." I'm not sure if the relatively minor tweaks to these sentences are enough to avoid WP:COPYVIO, and they strike me as the sort of thing that's specifically contraindicated by WP:PARAPHRASE.

I haven't been able to check Munske & Kearns, or Brannon, for passages that too closely resemble passages in the original. Could I ask you to go through the article and, when a sentence is very similar to something in the source from which it was taken, rephrase things? This would improve the writing in some cases, since Zimmerman doesn't strike me as the world's finest English prose stylist—the Big Jim sentence quoted above, for instance, gives the reader the impression that the financial stress of building the house led to his contracting TB.

I'll let further review of this article wait until you've had a chance to do that, since you might find yourself rearranging paragraphs and making major changes to things in the process. Could you leave me a note here when you've had a chance to do that? Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the Zimmerman source was the final reference to be consulted while writing this article, its content was not fully integrated into the prose. This did not occur with the Munske or Brannon sources. Most of the closely worded sentences are from Zimmerman's description of the architectural details--as there are only so many ways to state how many windows, etc. etc. I'll comb through each sentence to check for copyvios, and I will notify you when this has been completed and rectified. Thank you for the find. -- Caponer (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the architecture section yet, but I'm inclined to agree with you—there are only so many ways to describe a piece of architecture (especially if, as is my case, one's not at all well versed in the field). I had to deal with that in my article on the Nebraska church, where I was relying on one source for most of the serious architectural detail. To avoid excessive similarity, I tried taking things in different orders—for example, if my source described the exterior starting with the foundation and moving up to the steeple, I started at the steeple and worked downward. Another thing I tried was inverting the source's sentence structures: instead of "There are five gabled dormers on the second floor", I'd go with "On the second floor is a row of five gabled dormers". It might be worth trying tricks like this with your architectural description, if you're having a hard time distancing it from Z's description. Ammodramus (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the Zimmerman, Munske, and Brannon texts, and I've made several modifications to sentences that are worded closely. If it is alright with you, I'd like to continue with the review through the Harmison section while I continue to nitpick with the architecture section. With the exception of quoted sentences, the Casey and Parsons sections do not contain any similar sentences to those in the cited references. -- Caponer (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next round

Back to work, again apologizing for the intermittent character of this. I'll see if I can't get a decent amount of work done right now. I see that you've made quite a few changes in response to the copyright issue. I might tweak a few of those as I go; there were a few places where it looked like you were trying a little too hard to use a synonym, and it makes the sentence look unnatural. Feel free to dispute any such changes.

Y I'd be inclined to go a little further back with the history of the Northern Neck Proprietary, with a sentence or two stating that it was originally awarded to several people by Charles II in 1649/1660, and that Ld. Fairfax wound up with all of it in 1719. (I'm taking these dates from the WP article on the NNP, and haven't checked them against sources; but I assume that you can get them from Brannon, to which I don't have access.)

Since Brannon did not address the proprietary's history prior to Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron, I chose to include content from Munske and Kerns. I also utilized one of the online sources used in the NPP article, as that date was not mentioned outright in Brannon or Munske & Kerns. Does this work? -- Caponer (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y I'd hold back the name "South Branch Survey" until it comes up in chronological order. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that it was the one conducted by Genn. By making that clear, we could eliminate the "surveyed by Genn in 1748" in the second paragraph of the "Background" section.

I've made the necessary corrections/edits to the section to incorporate this. -- Caponer (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased a bit. From my reading of your text, the name "South Branch Survey" came before Genn's survey. (From the WP article on the Northern Neck Proprietary, I see that there were several surveys, and I assume that the SBS name came from one of them before 1748.) If I'm wrong, we need to rearrange things more like: "Ld. Fairfax planned to keep part as his personal manor. However, in 1748 he hired James Genn... The tract surveyed by Genn, known as the SBS of tne NNP, extended..."

You're absolutely correct in your rephrasing, as it was the South Branch Survey before Genn, he just subdivided it. The rewrite more accurately depicts this. -- Caponer (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y My inclination would be to leave out the death of Nicholas Casey Parsons, unless it was a factor in Elizabeth Parsons's selling of the house (for example, if he was the only son, or if his death left no one who could run the farm). By eliminating that sentence, we'd also get rid of a prounoun problem in the next sentence-- viz., that the "His widow..." that leads the sentence seems to refer to him rather than to Big Jim. Actually, might it work to leave out that sentence as well, or to combine the gist of it with the sentence on BJP's death? I'm thinking: BJP dies, leaving widow and children in house; finances had been strained by building of house; maybe NCP dies (if that could've been a factor in the family's financial straits); further financial strain from Civil War; Elizabeth sells in 1867 and moves to Missouri. I might be disposed to leave Elizabeth's death out, since she's moved out of the story by then; but a brief mention like "moved to Missouri, where she died in 1883" probably wouldn't be excessive.

NCP's death was not a factor in the house's sale, so I've omitted mention of him. As you know by this point, I'm prone to including superfluous details! I've combined the sentences detailing the death of BJP and his wife Elizabeth residing there throughout the duration of the ACW. I've removed the final sentence about Elizabeth's death. -- Caponer (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged things a bit, to put the two causes of financial stress together and to remove a repetition of "remaining children". You're allowed to dispute or revert!

In the vain hope that it might shed some light on the Parsons-to-Harmison sale date, I leafed through Parsons Family History and Record, and see that NCP died five days after his father (p. 260). I'd be inclined to wonder whether they were both felled by, say, the same cholera outbreak; but that's not consistent with BJP dying of tuberculosis. Maybe it's just a coincidence; or Big Jim was buried on a cold rainy day, and NCP contracted pneumonia from standing hatless by his father's grave through a long funeral sermon...

I assumed that NCP contracted tuberculosis, too, but I prefer your speculation of the events! Parsons Family History and Record gives few details about the Parsonses that we have covered in this and in the previous articles, other than providing dates of birth, marriage, and death. I assume that MacCabe was more interested in other offshoots of the family (primarily from Preston County), as she gives more in-depth information about the course of their lives. Big Jim and his son are interred at the top of the hill facing the house's facade. Unfortunately, this is not conveyed anywhere that is referenceable. The headstones were very unique in that they are short circular cylinders, with each divided into four quadrants with names placed within each of the quadrants. As I've stated, I have further research to conduct on one of my trips home, and perhaps I'll be able to uncover more information about the Parsons to Harmison sale! -- Caponer (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit coincidental (although by no means inconceivable) to have them both die of TB so close together; I get the impression that death from TB occurred months or even years after one started coughing blood. For example, the WP article says that John Keats was coughing blood by Feb. 1820, and died in Feb. 1821. It wasn't one of those things like cholera, where death tended to follow the initial symptoms in a matter of days.

Can't take credit for creativity—I'm shamelessly borrowing the circumstances of Joseph E. Johnston's death for my fictional version of NCP's.

YSale date? Per Zimmerman, Parsons-to-Harmison sale took place in 1869; article says 1867. If 1867 appears to be the corrrect date (e.g., if strongly supported by better sources), I'd add a footnote about the discrepancy, so that readers know that the Zimmerman date has been noted and rejected. (I did something like that in my Nebraska church article, where sources disagreed on the date of the first Presbyterian church's construction.)

I've added a footnote to mention the two conflicting sources. Zimmerman cites Long's date of 1869, but Brannon states 1867 (and his account borrows heavily from Long). [Long's history of the South Branch Survey was a thesis at WVU, of which I do not have access to at the moment]. Would it be alright to write "1867 or 1869" with a footnote? I am, however, inclined to prefer Zimmerman's date, as her research on the property is the most recent undertaking, and perhaps it is based on some other information not cited. -- Caponer (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't judge accurately at this distance, but I'd be inclined to put "1867 or 1869", followed by your explanatory footnote, in the article. I suspect that since Brannon and Zimmerman are both citing Long, one or the other suffered a slip of the finger that turned a "7" into a "9", or vice versa. Unfortunately, Zimmerman's being more recent doesn't make her less prone to that sort of accident.

I concur, and I've modified the sentence to state "1867 or 1869", followed by the footnote. We'll know once I can sneak a peak of the courthouse land records data. -- Caponer (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y The Harlan/Stoney Lonesome paragraph feels like a digression to me; I'd be disposed to leave it out, and also the mention of Stoney Lonesome in the Harmison section.

I've removed the mentions of Stoney Lonesome. I will be working on an article for this property at a later time. -- Caponer (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Jumping back in the article, I've done some tweakage around the Collins-Parsons transfer of ownership. Upon re-reading it, I decided that we needed something about James Gregg and Mary Catherine Parsons to motivate the two paragraphs on their ancestors. I also rewrote the passage on the legacies to JGP's three sons, for parallel structure. Have a look at my rewrites and make sure they work OK for you: they're definitely open for discussion, if you disagree with any part of them.

Over the past few days, I've reviewed your edits and rewrites to the above-mentioned paragraphs, and find that they enhance the article and improve its flow. I'm in support of them entirely. -- Caponer (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Going forward again to the Harmisons: We could use more information on where Chas. Harmison was from, and how he and Elizabeth wound up in Harrison County. Was he from Fauquier County as well, and did he and Elizabeth move to Harrison Co. after their marriage? Was he originally from Harrison Co., but wound up courting Elizabeth in Fauquier Co. and then taking her back home? Also, if we know, were either or both from moneyed families in their counties of origin—unfortunately, the Western View article doesn't give me a picture of how grand or humble a place it was, and we've got nothing about Chas.'s ancestral home. (In rewriting this, we might put the "Western View" name in the first paragraph, while discussing Elizabeth's background; then we could leave it out of the paragraph where we discuss her bestowing the "Valley View" name on this place—that'd decrease the similarity to a passage in Zimmerman.)

Unfortunately, there are several unknowns regarding Charles Harmison and his wife. As a distant relative of the Harmison family, I know that the Harmisons were native to Hampshire County. According to the "Virginia Marriages, 1851-1929" database and the West Virginia Vital Records Database, Harmison and his wife were married on May 4, 1854 in Taylor County. I hadn't stumbled upon it earlier, because it was digitized as "Harrison" rather than "Harmison." Charles Harmison, according to his marriage record, was born in Franklin County, Illinois. Why he, and his wife, were living in Taylor County at the the time of their marriage, is unknown. Many families that were moneyed prior to the ACW, were less so following the conflict, hence why so many old families from Virginia headed west. The Western View article on Wikipedia refers to an estate in Fluvanna County, Virginia, and not Fauquier. According to the book A Pride of Place: Rural Residences of Fauquier County, Virginia, there are at least three estates known as "Western View" in Fauquier. I've rewritten the paragraphs to include the known information--let me know what you think! -- Caponer (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Sympathize re. the Harmison/Harrison digitizing confusion. Sympathize, as well, re. the lack of material that we'd like to have.

There was a missing verb early in the Harmison history; I've inserted what I hope was the right one.

That was a typo on my part, sir! Thank you for catching it! -- Caponer (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YI'd leave the ten children out of the introductory bit on the Harmisons: mention, as you do, their then seven children at the time of the move to Hampshire Co., then have them bear three more while living there (if that's the correct number: I'd be surprised if there weren't any early deaths among them).

I removed the mention of the ten children altogether, as I wasn't able to ascertain how many children may have died prior to the move to Romney. -- Caponer (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Maybe—and here I'm definitely suggesting, not demanding—change the paragraph breaks on the Harmison acquisition. We've sold the property to the Harmisons in the previous section, so we know that people named Harmison are of interest. First paragraph of the new section is background: Charles Harmison was from Wherever County; married Elizabeth Smith, who had grown up in the Western View house in Fauquier County; somehow they wound up in Harrison Co. Next paragraph: Chas.'s brother had moved to Romney; he suggests that Chas. buy the Parsons property, seconded by Frau Harmison; they buy it and move there; she names the place. Next paragraph: Harmison prospers, buys more land, eventually dies. That division (pre-move, purchase and move, post-move) feels a bit more natural to me, although I haven't actually tried writing it out to see how it looks on the page.

The new paragraph structure works wonderfully! -- Caponer (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In an older version, Chas. Harmison's older brother ran the "Virignia House hotel". In the version I'm now working with, the "hotel" has been dropped. Intentionally or accidentally?

Since "Virginia House" was the name of the hotel, I decided that it would be redundant to include "hotel." It wouldn't hurt if it were re-included, though. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether it's needed. -- Caponer (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Virginia House" doesn't telegraph what kind of business it is, so I restored the lowercase "hotel".

Y Do we know what was happening between Chas. Harmison's death in 1896 and Geo. H's inheritance in 1903, presumably upon Elizabeth H's death?

I had assumed that his son inherited the farm following his mother's death, as both occurred in 1903. Would it be un-encyclopedic to include "presumably?" -- Caponer (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; it feels a bit like OR to me. I've rewritten so that Geo. is described as Charles and Elizabeth's son (rather than as "Harmison's"); that should clue the reader that Elizabeth's of some importance, and will prompt those who wonder what happened between '96 and '03 to look back at her dates.

The rewrite works well here, especially since I'd like to avoid any hint of possible OR where possible, as I sometime let it slip through! -- Caponer (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y What was the purpose of the Hampshire Southern RR? Per the South Branch Valley Railroad article, it ran Romney-Moorefield. It might be worth describing its route in slightly more detail, especially since we've now got what looks like two rail lines running across VV.

I've added content to expound upon the railroads at Valley View. Let me know if we need more context. -- Caponer (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a more general description of the route: something like "followed the valley of the South Branch Potomac south-southwest from Romney via McNeill to Moorefield"? I'd do something similar for the B&O's South Branch Romney-Green Spring line. I think that'd work better for people with limited WV geography, who don't necessarily know where Moorefield and Green Spring are.

Was the Hampshire Southern seen as a southward extension of the B&O South Branch?

The Hampshire Southern was built to connect Moorefield to the the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad South Branch line at Romney. It was later purchased by the Moorefield and Virginia Railroad Company, which was in turn purchased by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Thus, both lines bisecting Valley View were considered part of the South Branch line and under the ownership of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. -- Caponer (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y I'd give Geo. Harmison's creation of the subdivision its own paragraph, since that seems like a pretty major development. Also, who's J. H. Newhouse? If he/she's not a major character, leave that out. Also also, did the hospital get built? Did it not, and the lots remain part of the VV property? Were they sold to some random householder(s) later? If we don't know their fate, or if it's tangential to the article, I'd suggest leaving it out. Do we know about how many acres were sold in the subdivison, and how many remained as VV property?

I've moved this content to its own paragraph. J. H. Newhouse is not a major character, so he's hit the road. A hospital did get built on adjoining land approximately 600m southeast of the house at Valley View. Brannon had a brief history of the hospital in his book, so I added a brief mention. The exact lots Harmison intended to serve as a hospital are not known, but I assume that the 1970s-era Valley View Apartment Complex occupies that space, since all other parts of the bluff south of the house were developed shortly after Harmison's Valley View addition sale. -- Caponer (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be disposed to leave the hospital lots and the hospital itself out, since it wasn't built until 1957, and on different land; it appears that nothing special came of the hospital lots.

I've removed the mentions of the hospital lots and the later construction of Hampshire Memorial Hospital. That works! -- Caponer (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged the paragraph to put the fact of the subdivision early on. Feel free to revert, alter, dispute, etc.

No dispute here! The rearrangement works better than the original phrasing. -- Caponer (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Much of the detail in the last Harmison paragraph strikes me as unnecessary and distracting: Carrie and the Methodists, Carrie caring for young people, Paul and Nancy's genealogies. (Looking back, I'd also be inclined to lose Carrie's ancestry in the previous paragraph.)

I trimmed Carrie's Wesleyan sympathies and some of the genealogical content. Does more need to be trimmed away? -- Caponer (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for keeping Carrie's parentage in the paragraph on her marriage? It seems like a bit of a digression to me.

It is indeed a digression, so I've removed its mention. -- Caponer (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Were Paul and Nancy Harmison the ones who sold it to the Newells? "In the possession of the Harmison family" is a little unclear.

I was a little vague on purpose, mostly because the sources I utilized were vague. I had originally written that Paul and Nancy Harmison sold it to the Newells, but the sources did not support it. -- Caponer (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Any idea how Mind Garage wound up at VV? Did the Newells rent the place out? Were they trying to start a commune or the like? Opening their place up to the long-haired and dashiki'd as part of Père Newell's pastorate?

This is a question I have, too! I will have to inquire about this from the owners of VV next time I am in town. I would assume that because Mr. Newell was a reverend, and Mind Garage was originally a Christian band, that there was a connection there made through the church. I have a funny anecdote that I'll have to share with you outside of this review. -- Caponer (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammo, your comments and suggestions have made my day, as usual! I'm a little swamped at the moment, but I promise to address all these in full this weekend! -- Caponer (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your forbearance with my exceeding pickiness. I'm going to try to move on to the architecture section soon. My guess is that I'll be able to get through that faster, since it won't have some of the chronological issues that came up in the history section. I'll probably start a new subsection for that. Ammodramus (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Ammo, you're truly the master of your trade craft! I enjoyed reviewing and acting upon your brilliant suggestions. I know there are several holes in the story of Valley View, and I've tried to fill them the best way I can, given the sources at my disposal. It is my hope that I will be able to make some trips to the Hampshire County Courthouse this summer to patch those up. The Mayhew family has done an extraordinary job of renovating and restoring the house and its grounds--as you can see in the images provided in the 2012 NRHP registration form. In my initiative to draft articles for all Hampshire County's NRHP properties, I began with this one because of my personal attachment to this home. It is one of my favorites in Hampshire County. Please review my comments/responses at your leisure and I look forward to your next review round! -- Caponer (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing up history section

I should apologize again for trying your patience with this slow, slow review. I'd like to try to get through the last of the article today, but this wouldn't be the first time that my accomplishments fell short of my intentions. However, I'm tolerably confident that I can get through the last few paragraphs of the history section.

Y In the last paragraph before Mind Garage, the two sentences describing Paul Cresap Harmison's ancestry and his marriage feel like a digression. Would you be willing to cut them?

I removed the content regarding the date of his marriage, and I shortened the sentence about his genealogy. I retained his relationship to Charles Harmison. -- Caponer (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was Charles's brother Jonathan the older brother who'd run the Virginia House? If so, his name should be in that passage.

I haven't been able to find enough substantive information on the Virginia House, which was later known as the Parker Hotel. Several images of the structure exist, but I cannot find any information to link a specific Harmison to it. I'll continue to dig, and if that information ever avails itself, I'll edit this article accordingly. -- Caponer (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the details of Paul Cresap Harmison's relationship to Charles H. into the parentheses with his dates, which feels a little less digressive to me. See what you think—it looks a little better to me right now, but I might feel otherwise tomorrow morning. Feel free to revert, tweak, etc.

I just saw your move of the PCH relationship to CH, and I approve! It's an aside, which looks proper in parentheses! -- Caponer (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y I'd be inclined to split the Mayhew paragraph in two: one about the reduction over the years to 6.63 acres; a second about the Mayhew purchase and restoration.

Done! -- Caponer (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Regarding the property sell-offs, what property was divided into five farms? The whole of the original Lot 20, or the portion left after the 1911 subdivision was sold off? Do we know if the five-farms division happened at one time, or were pieces sold off one at a time over the course of many years?

The original Lot Number 20 was divided into five farms by the 1970s, of which Valley View is one of the five. Lot Number 20 was gradually carved into these five farms over time, including Stoney Lonesome across the river, which was sold by Big Jim to his daughter and his son-in-law (Dr. and Mrs. Harlan). The other land that was carved away from Lot Number 20 was gradually sold by the Harmisons. In 1976, Brannon mentions that Lot Number 20 had been divided into five farms, so I leave it up to you whether this figure is worth stating in the article. -- Caponer (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Valley View Addition, subdivided in 1911, also part of Lot 20? If so, would it be more accurate to say something like "five farms and additional parcels, including the VVA"?

VVA was indeed part of the Lot 20, so I've added your suggested wording into the article's prose. -- Caponer (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y What would you say to adding the NRHP listing to the end of the history section; something like "In 2012, the farm was listed in the National Register of Historic Places."? I think it'd follow the mention of the Mayhews' restorations very naturally.

How about: Through Robert and Kim Mayhew's efforts, the house at Valley View was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2012 for its locally significant Greek Revival architecture. I've added this to the end of the second Mayhew paragraph. Let me know if this will do! I call out the house specifically, as the farm's barns and other supporting structures fall outside the 6.63 acres listed on the NRHP.-- Caponer (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source for "Through R&K Mayhew's efforts"? If not, we should probably leave that part out and go with a passive "The house at VV was listed..." Nice to give them a shout-out, but only if we can document it.

Even though I know it to be true, I've removed their mention as I do not have a verifiable source! Done! -- Caponer (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Y What would you say to switching the order of the geography and architecture sections? It feels a bit more natural to me to discuss the larger setting before focusing on the house and outbuildings. (This is definitely no more than a suggestion!)

I definitely see your point and understand the rationale, however, I hesitate doing so because I like that we set the scene of the house, and then we expand out from the house to set the scene for the house's surrounding environs. If the geography section was shorter, I wouldn't mind switching them, but because it's a bit in-depth, I like it after the architecture section. It would work either way, though! -- Caponer (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to insist on this. I thought it'd be better to have the description of Mill Creek Mountain before the first mention, but since we've got a Wikilink, that's not a big deal.

I'd suggest one change in the last paragraph of "Exterior". We've got the rear facade facing "toward Mill Creek Mountain and the South Branch..." Since the mountain's on the far side of the river, could we reverse the order of these, or even say "faces across (river) toward (mountain)"? It feels a bit more natural to me to describe a view near-to-far than far-to-near; and the "across" might make the layout a little clearer to the reader.

Done! When looking out over the valley from Valley View, I tend to notice the ridge first, then look down to the river. But to the casual reader of this article, your rewrite makes a bit more sense, as one would think to look at the nearest object, then the further object. -- Caponer (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I followed the Wikilink to Mill Creek Mtn, and saw who wrote the article and how long ago. Hampshire County's lucky to have you working so hard on its history; I wish I could say that I could focus on a project as dilligently as you do.

Why thank you, sir. It's been a pastime of mine for almost ten years, although some of those years have been a bit more dedicated than others! -- Caponer (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y In the description of Depot Valley in the geography section, "spans" is ambiguous: is this the width or length of the valley? Also, I'd be inclined to split that sentence into one about the width/length of the valley, and a second about the watercourse and Depot Valley Road. Too, it'd feel more natural to me to have the road running parallel to the tributary rather than vice versa, since I assume that the tributary was there first.

Done! How is this? Depot Valley's length spans 0.5 miles (0.80 km) north from West Sioux Lane to Valley View, through which a small unnamed tributary of Big Run flows. Depot Valley Road parallels the unnamed stream for the entirety of its course through the small valley. -- Caponer (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd use "runs" rather than "spans", since the latter suggests width to me—it brings to mind bridges spanning gorges and the like. Also, could we indicate the direction of the stream's flow, e.g. "runs north and downward"?

I couldn't agree more--done! -- Caponer (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've played with the phrasing a bit: feel free to discuss, revert, etc. Whatever we wind up doing with it, I think it's well within GA parameters by now, so I'll go ahead and check this off. Ammodramus (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reviewing what you've done with the Depot Valley description, and I'm visualizing myself standing on West Sioux Lane staring down Depot Valley toward Valley View--we have a winning geographical description of DV! -- Caponer (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y The "Depot Valley is named for..." passage feels a bit muddled to me. I assume that the valley was named for the depot and not for the railroad spur that led to it. How about something like "named for Romney Depot, which was located at the end of a former spur of the B&O SB line, near the intersection of present-day..."?

Done! -- Caponer (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Who's David Hunter? He's not Wikilinked or mentioned elsewhere in the article. I'd be inclined to leave his name out.

That works! I removed Hunter's name from the sentence, but kept the year of the survey. -- Caponer (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; every time I hit that name, I had to remind myself that no, it wasn't the Union general.

Y I've done some rewriting near the end of the geography section: split some paragraphs, fiddled with some descriptions. Could you check this and make sure that I haven't introduced error or messed too badly with what you were trying to say? Don't hesitate to revert or dispute my changes here.

I like your smaller paragraphs illustrating like topics, more so than my two gargantuan paragraphs! I've read and re-read your rewritten paragraphs, and you haven't introduced error or messed with any of the content. I'm convinced that it is next to impossible for you to ever introduce error, sir! -- Caponer (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of you to say so; but if you had an afternoon to spend with my contribution history, you'd find plenty of red-faced self-reverts.

Architecture

This is an area where I'm rather out of my depth: I've acquired a few architectural terms from reading NRHP nom forms and the like, but when they get into neo-Palladian rowlock corbelled balustrades, I have to shut my eyes and trust that the sources know what they're talking about. You probably know more about the subject than I do, so if I start talking nonsense, don't hesitate to tell me so.

You haven't begun to talk nonsense regarding the architectural features. Luckily for my sake, I have a dictionary of architectural terms that keeps me from making glaring errors! This also assisted me in the article for Colross, which featured far more embellishing than austere Valley View! Thank you for your suggestions on the Architecture section, as it makes a lot more sense to build up the lead, and take out all the unnecessary information placed in the Interior and Exterior sections. -- Caponer (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you recommend your architectural dictionary? My library needs, among other things, a good dictionary of terms like "corbel" and "pediment". Ideally, I'd like something with large illustrations of buildings, with lots of helpful arrows pointing to various features, so that I can figure out what the thingum up there by the corner of the roof is without having to go through the dictionary definition by definition. (I'm also looking for something that'll teach the rank novice how to name the architectural style of a building, so that I can walk past something and say "Aha! Richardsonian Romanesque!" or the like—and say it with some hope of being correct!)

The architectural dictionary I rely upon the most is A Visual Dictionary of Architecture (2012) by Francis D. K. Ching. I actually use an old hardcopy of the original edition (1995), but the 2012 edition seems like it's been slightly expanded. Ching's dictionary provides a drawing and short definition of each architectural element. This book would be an ideal addition to your library, and once you pick up some of the terms, you'll be impressing your friends in no time with your knowledge of a corbel arch versus a stilted arch versus a trefoil arch, etc. etc.!

Ching, Francis D. K. (2012). A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781118160497. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) -- Caponer (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've got a chunk of Amazon credit, and this would be an excellent way to expend some. The next time an architecture student kicks sand in my face...

Y At the very beginning of the "Architecture" section, how about a brief overview of the property, quickly recounting that there's an 1855 house with a 1960s kitchen addition, and a quick list of the ancillary structures? That would let the reader know what's coming; otherwise, "the original section" early in the second paragraph of "Interior" comes as something of a surprise. That initial section might also be a better place for the last two sentences of the second paragraph of "Interior", and for the first sentence of the third paragraph (nails used in house's construction; source of bricks; what's still present in 2012); those facts don't really seem to belong specifically to either interior or exterior.

Again, this makes perfect sense, and these data points work much better in the lead! Done! -- Caponer (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we need to mention Long specifically on the manufacture of the bricks or the iron angles, and especially to use her name twice in two sentences. I'd be disposed to leave the name out, unless we were using a conjecture, an opinion, or a direct quote. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Long is out! -- Caponer (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y In the second paragraph of "Exterior", describing the front facade, I wonder whether a rearrangement of the material would work better. Instead of starting with a very quick overview of the house, then zooming into the front entrance, then pulling back and describing the rest of the front facade, how about reversing the order of the last two, describing the front facade generally and gradually focusing in on the front entrance? This would allow you to end with the Zimmerman quote (or a pharaphrase thereof, which I think might work slightly better, but that's just one editor's opinion) about Big Jim's wealth and grandeur. In any case, the substance of the Z. quote should probably go after the whole main entrance has been described, since she mentions the expensive glass as one of the things that'd impress visitors.

Done! Please feel free to let me know what you think about my rewrite. I struck a balance between the Zimmerman quote and paraphrasing, and trimmed out some of the fat from the original quote. I'm a little sleep-deprived, so please pardon my lack of creativity this evening! -- Caponer (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Your fat-trimming worked very well indeed. I tweaked the phrasing just a bit, so that it was clear from the outset of the sentence that we were citing Z's opinion.

Y I'd probably separate the description of the NW and SE ends of the house as a single-sentence paragraph. It's not great style, but it strikes me as better than having it as an odd sentence in a longish paragraph that's otherwise all about one side.

Agreed, and done! -- Caponer (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y You've got the hand-wrought structural iron angles in both "Exterior" and "Interior". One mention should be enough. If (like me) you don't know whether these are exterior or interior features, add them to the beginning of "Architecture", along with the nails and the bricks.

Done! This has been moved to the lead of the Architecture section! -- Caponer (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y In the third paragraph of "Ancillary structures", are there any remains of the log kitchen described in the last sentence? If not, I'd leave it out of a description of the place as it is today. (I assume that's the kitchen that Geo. Harmison tore down.)

This was indeed the kitchen that George Harmison tore down, so I've gone ahead and removed it per your suggestion! -- Caponer (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close to done?

I think we're close to done with this, to what I'm sure is your considerable relief. Again, I fervently hope that I haven't crossed the line from "helpfully suggestive" to "insanely picky". Don't let an excess of courtesy keep you from criticizing me if I've ventured into the latter territory.

I'll let you implement and comment on the suggestions that I've made, and will then try to give the article one more top-to-bottom read-through before signing off on it. Short of one or the other of us getting hit by a grain truck, though, it looks like the GA is within sight. I'll go out on a limb and offer preliminary congratulations—and until this is done, will be extra careful while crossing the road. Ammodramus (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammo, I prefer to think of you as a "consummate perfectionist," and not as being "insanely picky!" I've implemented your changes to the best of my abilities this evening, sleep deprivation and all! I hope this review has not been too burdensome for you, and that it hasn't taken too much time away from researching and crafting your own extraordinary Nebraska articles! In return, I offer preliminary gratitude and appreciation for your painstaking analysis of this article! You went above and beyond the role of reviewer, as always, and I am a very lucky editor to have had your input! -- Caponer (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No sleep deprivation here, but I'm just off a four-hour drive with a crosswind much of the way, so I'm running on fumes myself. Only a bit of this left to go; if you can hit the last few unchecked points (most of them minor details on points where you've already done most of the work), I'll try to give the article a last read-through and, barring the unlikely event that I spot something critical that we've both missed during this three-week workover, I'll sign off on your well-deserved GA. Ammodramus (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sir! I've addressed your remaining unchecked comments above, so I look forward to your final re-read and re-review! Get some much deserved post-drive shut eye and we'll continue the Valley View saga another day. I'll be snowed in come tomorrow night, so I'll definitely have more time to dedicated to another round of edits, should there be one! Thanks again for everything Ammo! -- Caponer (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to stick the proverbial fork in this tomorrow morning. Ammodramus (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks good 12 hours later. Congratulations! Ammodramus (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related to review

@Caponer, thanks for the note on my talkpage asking me if I'd review this article -- it's why I reserved it in good faith. But it appears you left a similar note on Ammodramus' page and he got a jump start on the review. I don't know what the precedent is for this situation, but I can tell you that I no longer want to be involved in it... too much drama.

@Ammodramus - I'm not the kind of editor who would move someone else's comments from a GAR to an article's talkpage. That responsibility, my friend, should fall on the shoulders of the editor who thinks he's posted his comments on the wrong page. I always AGF so no hard feelings here. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie, I'm very sorry if I made it look like I was trying to grab the review for myself, or to steer your review in my preferred direction. I hadn't read Caponer's note as a request that I carry out the GAR; in fact, soliciting a GAR from a particular editor strikes me as a thing to be avoided. My plate's somewhat full right now, and I didn't want to take on the responsibility of another review. However, if I've made this article an uncomfortable place for you, I'll take on the review, in the spirit of cleaning up my own mess.

For now, I've moved my earlier comments to a new section of the article's talk page. If you'd still like to do this review, that should leave you a clean-ish slate. If you'd rather not do it, then would it be appropriate for me to finish a review with your name on it as reviewer? Is there a way of changing it in mid-review, or would you have to give the article a pro-forma fail, then have Caponer immediately renominate it and me immediately sign on as reviewer? Since you and I both have so little experience in the reviewing business, we might have to trespass on Dr. Blofeld's patience for advice in the matter.

Again, my heartfelt apologies for causing you and everyone else all these complications. Ammodramus (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosiestep, Dr. Blofeld, and Ammodramus, I would first and foremost like to apologize to each and every single one of you for causing this confusion. I have been in transit over the past 24 hours, and am just now catching up on all your messages. As I posted similarly on my talk page to Rosiestep and Dr. Blofeld, I should have been more clear in what I was asking for from each of you, and that was for informal guidance on how to improve the quality of this article. Although, I omitted the word "informal." The fact that Rosiestep selected the article for GAR was an unexpected and very welcomed and appreciated surprise. I value and cherish the input from each of you, which is why I wanted to survey my adjacent fields of subject matter experts and take advantage of your combined know-how. In the future, I will avoid such solicitations, and I hope that I haven't caused too much trouble here. -- Caponer (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK! Best to just get on with the review now Ammo. You can peer review the article afterwards if you want wider input from Rosie and myself if you want to take it to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article stability

I'm not sure who's doing the review here, but if it's me, I'm not ready to start it until the article is stable. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's you, without a doubt. I'll halt work on the article immediately and leave it to you. Hope that I haven't interfered with your timetable for the review; and again, please feel free to move my earlier comments around or shift them to the main talk page if their current placement is interfering with your plans for the layout of the review page. Ammodramus (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Ammodramus, I know Caponer asked you to review it but Rosie clearly reserved the review and got there before you and it is disrespectful to post comments here before she even started, even though I know you're acting in good faith. If somebody did that to me I'd be most annoyed. I really don't think it's fair for Rosie to continue to review this now, I'd suggest you do the review Ammo and hope this doesn't happen again. You've made some good points and should continue to do so I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. No disrespect was intended; in my own justification, I was guided by the passage in the GA box at the main article talk page, starting "Further reviews are welcome..."

I'll leave the decision up to Rosie. If she'd rather not continue with the review, I'll take it over, per Dr. Blofeld's suggestion. If she'd still like to do the review, but would prefer that I butt out, then out I shall butt. If she'd like to do the review and is willing to have me add my comments after she's had a chance to go through and make her own suggestions, I'm amenable to that as well. Ammodramus (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know you intended good faith, but that doesn't usually happen until after somebody does the review, that's why it says further reviews !! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]