An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the
good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a
good article.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
A fact from Chestertown Armory appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 September 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Expanded by 5x, barely. Article is also long enough and Earwig doesn't reveal any problems. Hook is short enough, accurate and supported by in-line citation. Two issues to be resolved before this can be passed: (1) needs a QPQ, and (2) the hook is not particularly hooky, and you indicated that you would be willing to find a better hook. Ping me when these are done.
Cbl62 (
talk)
01:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
It's been over a week since the review, but despite two reminders a QPQ has not been provided. As such the nomination is marked for closure on technical grounds. The nomination can resume if a QPQ is provided and the hook issue raised above is addressed.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
06:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Guerillero: QPQ is done, but the alt1 hook isn't supported by the source. The source does not say that there is a "plan" to convert the armory into a B&B. (A "
plan" is "a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.") The article describes more of a generic rumination/discussion: "The college has had discussions with several interested parties about eventually converting the approximately 20,700-square-foot armory building into a bed and breakfast." Accordingly, and as phrased, alt1 is not accurate.
Cbl62 (
talk)
12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The issue is not one of pleasing me, but rather one of accuracy. Alt 1a is accurate and sufficiently hooky. Alts 2 and 3 are OK as well (though less hooky IMO). I did fix the typos in alts 2 and 3.
Cbl62 (
talk)
13:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
? Consider changing "After the 115th Infantry Regiment" to "When the"
? Consider changing "to Washington College in 2013. Since then, it has stood vacant" to "to Washington College in 2013; since then, it has stood vacant"
@
Guerillero: Hoping to wrap this up soon. Are you against these two suggestions?
? Since we are describing a building we should probably use more details from citations 2 (there is more info about the building in there). Maybe other sources which describe the building or design?
? I might also consider changing the name of the section to design and consider moving the section below the planning section so that it is chronological.
? Do we know who the architecture or designer was? Looks like Carl is not the the architect? It looks like from the source he was the general contractor/builder - maybe that too should be spelled out in the article.
A name has appeared in the local paper in editorials starting in 2022, but I can't find it in contemporaneous sources or in the reporting part of the paper --
GuerilleroParlez Moi10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
? This sentence should be rewritten "After a year, due to trouble securing plans, Maryland awarded contract to erect the building Carl Schmidt", It is missing words. Also I think we need more context about the "trouble". I also do not like the use of "due to".
? In this sentence "In 2013, the Chestertown Armory was transferred to Washington College.[19] The structure continues to sit vacant." - there is no setup for when or how the building was first left vacant. Consider adding the information.
? Consider rewriting "studies of the building showing extensive mold in the building that would make remediation unfeasible." to "studies of the building revealed extensive mold in the building that would make remediation unfeasible."
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline.
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).