This review is transcluded from Talk:Seth Peterson Cottage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 23:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Staniulis (talk · contribs) 19:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lis! I'm excited to begin reviewing this article—what a beautiful cottage! I've already skimmed through it and really like the sources I'm seeing. I'll make sure to have a complete review ready for you by the end of this week. — Staniulis ✿ 19:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I fixed some minor grammar errors and restructured some sentences to improve readability; however, the article was already well-written to begin with.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	• Short description is good. • I did make some minor adjustments to comply with MOS:GEOLINK. • The lead is well-written and free of unnecessary/repeated citations; everything written is also covered in the body of the article. • No faults with the layout. • No issues with MOS:PUFFERY. Complimentary terms are properly quoted and attributed. • Quotations are of an appropriate length and used only when necessary.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are well-formatted, with page numbers provided where necessary (e.g., newspapers.com and ProQuest).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	You did a wonderful job maintaining text–source integrity, which is so important in articles, even those that aren't contentious. It makes it so much easier to verify figures.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All figures and descriptors are quoted. There are no unverified/uncited claims.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Clear of copyright issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nicely written description section that is direct and not long-winded. I do like the consideration you took in specifying the figures that are not 100% certain, like: Sources disagree on whether it has 880 square feet (82 m2) or 900 square feet (84 m2) of interior space.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See comment written in box 3a. To reiterate, I love the straightforward figures and the inclusion of cited doubts, all of which stay within the scope of the article and do not unnecessarily clutter the relevant section.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There are no issues with POV. All sections, including "Impact", are written from a neutral standpoint.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article's revision history is clean and stable, with no ongoing edit wars or disputes. Before my copyedits, you were credited with having written 96.3% of the current version, so authorship is certainly not a concern.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are tagged with valid rationales. • CC BY-SA 4.0 • CC0 1.0 • CC BY-SA 4.0
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I wrote a short caption for the image in the infobox. Other than that, all the pictures are good and have satisfactory captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is very well-researched and well-rounded, supported by reliable sources that effectively expand on the reconstruction of the cottage beyond surface-level detail. The inclusion of monetary figures offers interesting insight into all the work that went into this arduous yet ultimately lucrative restoration project. I am more than happy to pass this nomination and promote it to good article status.

Before I officially promote Seth Peterson Cottage to GA status, I do want to leave communication open for any questions, concerns, or comments you may have regarding my assessment and copyedits. If you wish to request a second opinion don't hesitate to do so. Thank you for your contributions and your patience. — Staniulis ✿ 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Staniulis, thanks for the detailed review, I appreciate it. I don't really see any issues with your copyedits, though I did want to point out one thing:

• The house was acquired by the Pritchard family in 1961, and they subsequently completed its construction - In this case, I think "completed construction" or "completed the cottage" would be more concise.

If there are any other issues you'd like me to fix, please let me know. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: No problem! Looking at it again, my phrasing was unnecessarily long-winded. I agree with your suggestion; something like (1) "The house was acquired and completed by the Pritchard family in 1961", or (2) "The house was acquired by the Pritchard family in 1961, who completed construction", would work well.

I don't see any glaring issues. The edit I made—just some copyedits and adding a caption + alt to the infobox image—was simple enough to do on my end, so I didn't want to trouble you with it. You really did a nice job on this article. (It also reminded me that I really should start using ProQuest again to help with my own research. I forgot I had access to it until doing this review, haha.) — Staniulis ✿ 01:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The house was acquired by the Pritchard family in 1961, who completed construction

@Staniulis, sounds good. I've gone with a variation of that. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Looks good. I'll pass this review and promote the article to GA status. — Staniulis ✿ 02:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]