Talk:Mount Hope Estate

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Hope Estate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gyrobo (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• (1) Well-written
  • (a) the prose is clear and concise
    • • "...an 1895 remodeling transformed the structure with Victorian features."
      • Did it tranform it using Victorian features, or transform it to have Victorian features?
        •  Done - reworded. cmadler (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "...also notable for the pre-1840 American formal garden..."
      • Would read better as "also notable for its"
        •  Done (and changed "the grounds are" to "the grounds is" for subject-verb agreement, since "grounds" can be either singular or plural) cmadler (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "...named to recall Cornwall."
      • Phrasing just seems a little odd here.
        •  Done cmadler (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "The property was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980, with a boundary increase in 1991 associated with the Iron and Steel Resources of Pennsylvania MPS (Multiple Property Submission)."
      • This feels awkward. Is there a way to rephrase this to say that it was listed as a MPS, or that it became part of a MPS?
        •  Done cmadler (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "...the most formal ironmaster's mansion built in the area..."
      • What does this mean? Would a link to another article explain this?
        • ? I'm not sure how else to word this. The area was a major center for iron production, so there were many mansions in the area built by ironmasters. MHE was the most formal of these. I've added a wikilink to Polite architecture, which is not a very good article but will perhaps give an idea of what is meant. cmadler (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
          • That's good, I just wasn't certain what "formal" meant in this sense.
    • "locally cut", "locally quarried"
      • Should be hyphenated "locally-cut", "locally-quarried".
        •  Done cmadler (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Some, like Hope Church..."
      • Can probably read better as "Some of the buildings, like Hope Church..."
        •  Done cmadler (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "...over the years, and today..."
      • Looks like a run-on sentence.
        • It is not a run-on sentence, because the two related independent clauses are properly punctuated using a comma and a coordinating conjunction (",and"). The coordinating conjunction could be replaced with a semicolon if you think that would be better. cmadler (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm reading it again and it makes more sense now.
• (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines
  • Three disambiguation links
    • Schoolhouse
      •  Done cmadler (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sconce
      •  Done cmadler (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Shippen
      •  Done Removed, since there's no actual Wikipedia article on the family, only on individual members. cmadler (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "...Mount Hope Estate and Winery, the Swashbuckler Brewing Company..."
    • Doesn't need to be in boldface. They aren't the topic.
      •  Done cmadler (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "...mid-to-late-19th century...", "19th century"
    • Should read "mid-to-late-1800s", "1800s" where used as a date range. Phrases like "16th-century Tudor village" are okay, though.
      •  Done cmadler (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "...1848-49...", etc.
    • Year ranges in this article use dashes, they should use ndashes. "–"
      •  Done I think I got them all. cmadler (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Architecture
    • If the reference in the title can be used for all the information in the paragraph, it should go at the end of the paragraph. If not, that paragraph needs a source.
      •  Done cmadler (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Exterior has several small paragraphs that could be combined.
    •  Done cmadler (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• (2) Factually accurate
  • (a) it provides references to all sources
    • Dead links
      • The History of Mount Hope Estate & Winery
      • Photo of the smokehouse, c. 1980
      • Photo of the front (south) of the house, c. 1980
      • Photo of the fron (south) and east side of the house, c. 1980
      • Photo of the post office, c. 1980
        •  Done The cited material is supported by another citation, so that reference is not needed. I'm unable to find these photos elsewhere online, so I've removed these dead links. cmadler (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "...and other events held throughout the year."
      • Examples are needed, or a citation that claims this.
        • They are detailed, and cited, in the section titled "Other events". cmadler (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It might be a good idea to include something to the effect of "See below" in parentheses, possibly with a link to the relevant section.
          •  Done, though I disagree with the need for and appropriateness of this. cmadler (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "As part of the Renaissance fair, Romito had a large crenellated wall built adjacent to the mansion."
      • Needs a source.
        •  Done The wall (including crenellation) is visible adjacent to the mansion in the photo in the infobox, but I can't find a citation confirming that Romito had it built for the Renaissance fair, so I've removed the statement. cmadler (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "The pub is also used for musical and comedy shows throughout the year, both during and after the faire season."
      • Also needs source.
        •  Done Corrected and cited. cmadler (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Outbuildings has a lot of unsourced statements.
      •  Done cmadler (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The infobox doesn't have sources for its National Register of Historic Places info, but the article does.
      •  Done cmadler (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (b) it provides in-line citations
    • The lead
      • It currently has no references.
        •  Done cmadler (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Architecture
      • This whole section needs sources.
        • As noted in footnote #13, all the information in the section is drawn from the NRHP Nomination Form. I've added an inline ref to that note at the end of each of the subsections, but if you think it would be better I could go so far as to add it at the end of each paragraph. cmadler (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
          • WP:REF recommends adding references at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph, rather than the end of a section/subsection.
            •  Done cmadler (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (c) it contains no original research
    • Citations are needed.
      • Are there particular statements or sections that still need more citations? cmadler (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It's looking really good, but there needs to be at least one reference at the end of each paragraph.
          •  Done cmadler (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• (3) Broad in its coverage
  • (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
  • (b) it stays focused on the topic
• (4) Neutral
• (5) Stable
• (6) Illustrated
  • (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
  • (b) images are relevant

Reviewer: Gyrobo (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I believe I've addressed all the concerns raised above. If I missed any, please let me know! Thanks, cmadler (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I responded after each point that I thought needed further explanation, but overall, it's looking really good.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, unless I missed something. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added a little source data to the references, and split the one note in the article into a separate Notes section. The article meets all the GA criteria, as far as I can tell, and I'm going to pass it now. This was my first review, and I hope you found my comments and suggestions useful.
      --Gyrobo (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the "does not cite any sources" orange banner at the top of the "Mount Hope Estate Craft Brands" section. Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Mount Hope Estate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep. C679 09:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a "does not cite any sources" orange banner at the top of the "Mount Hope Estate Craft Brands" section, which I agree with. This should be resolved for the article to retain its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that this section, introduced in 2018, is an issue and I felt like it contained too much specific detail in an article which isn't actually dedicated to this brewing company. I removed much of it, leaving a sufficient bare-bones which still needs citing. I'd sooner think we'd remove the section entirely if it's either that or the article's GA status, if adaquate sourcing isn't available. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Bungle: The "Mount Hope Estate Craft Brands" section still has a "more sources needed" orange banner. Are you interested in addressing this? Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have taken a look a few times at any suitable sources for the other bits, but haven't found any I am happy satisfy the criteria. If I can't, and nobody else shows up to assist, i'd suggest either removing the parts identified without a citation or replacing with something else noted in the sources I found. I'll take another look over the weekend, if it seems there won't be anyone else! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720, as it seems there has been no other input, i've cleared up the remaining uncited sentences (and restructured one which I could not independently verify in its previous form). I chopped much of the section prose out initially so it's just the fundamental parts without too much excess detail.

  I'm indifferent if we keep the section still (I have no particular interest in the article either way), but hope it's enough to address the uncited concerns to retain a GA status. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Concerns addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.