Talk:Borley Rectory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay, my main computer crashed Sunday, so its taken the best part of two whole days to get most of the software up and running (emails are still down), so working on wikipeidia articles was low down on my list of "things to do". Pyrotec (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to work my way through the article, starting with the History and finishing with the Lede.

History -

This generally looks OK, but perhaps the second paragraph is a bit "thin" on citations. Note: the link with the Waldegrave family, has a somewhat "better" citation via this source [1] .
Interestingly, that nice photograph has a copyright licence granted by a Spanish wikipedia editor [2] who was permanently banned back in Nov 2009 (see [3]). The associated metadata has the "look and feel" of a scanner, so I suspect that the licence is more likely to be Public Domain due to copyright has expired.
Image licensing is a bloody nightmare, but as the lead image is also of the rear of the house I don't think we need this one anyway, so I've deleted it. Eric Corbett 13:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hauntings -

This section look OK.

Price investigation -
- Untitled first subsection -

I've not yet found that reputed advert in the Times on 25 May 1937. After several search strategies and widening the dates, I came up with a fire walker getting burnt 8 & 10 April 1937 and again in 1938; and Ghost club revived and reformed ghost club in March and April 1938, respectively. Since the Times' digital index is based on an OCR capture of the scanned images, not finding is not "define proof" that it's not there.
The first subsection doesn't need to be titled. I've checked, and that's definitely the date that Price says in his The End of Borley Rectory that he placed the advert. I'll have a look through Newsquest and see if I can find it. Eric Corbett 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Price's advert is right on the front page, column 4, headed "Haunted House". I'll maybe add that as a link. Eric Corbett 13:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm merely using "Untitled first subsection" as a location aid, its not a statement of non-compliance with WP:WIAGA. My county-based public library, more precisely its a consortium of the library authorities in a county, three districts and a city, gives access (using the library card as id) to Infotrac and then The Times digital library, so I checked the claim without success on 16th Aug.. I've now rechecked, and yes it's there as you state. Note: the web gives the citation as:- Source Citation: "Business Offers." Times [London, England] 25 May 1937: 1. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 20 Aug. 2013. Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Destroyed by fire -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This subsection looks OK.

Society for Psychical Research investigation -

This section look OK.

WP:Lead -

This section looks OK.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting another article up to GA. Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]