Talk:Bramshill House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Review

I don't think this is going to be difficult. In truth, the article seems to me of Featured Article quality, let alone Good Article, and I shall have no problem in confirming that it meets all the GA criteria. The two black and white Country Life 1923 images might, I suspect, attract flak at FAC, but they're in Commons, which is good enough for me here.

Before I cut the ribbon I offer you a few minor quibbles and queries. None are important enough to affect GA status, but you might like to ponder:

• General
  • Monarchs: you sometimes pipe their titles (Queen Elizabeth I et al) and sometimes don't (e.g. King Charles I). I think you could follow your own lead ("…the 14-year-old Edward III…) and lose the "King" or "Queen" altogether in most places, though possibly not for the Romanians.
• Lead
  • "Listing/listed" – move link up to first mention?
• Modern times
  • Last sentence: WP:CLAIM – it does rather look as though you doubt the Home Office's statement.
• Exterior
  • "the late art connoisseur" – not clear why Blunt is "the late", being no deader than Lees-Milne, Lucas-Tooth and others. Also not clear why Lucas-Tooth's opinion is notable.
  • "…traditionally attributed to architect John Thorpe …" – Two points here. Without a definite article this is tabloidese ("Premier David Cameron…"). Secondly, it could do with a citation.
  • "Bramshill House is three storeys high …" – Three "and"s in this sentence. Rather too many?
• South
  • "Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders" – blue links wanted?
  • "a florid perforated pediment in strapwork" – I can do "florid" and "perforated" and can take a confident shot at "pediment", but "strapwork" has me hailing the coastguard. A link or footnote would be welcome.
  • "architectural fore-ground" – unusual hyphen.
  • "a three feet three inch high – I get in a tangle with hyphens, and I don't pose as an expert, but they seem lacking here. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
• North
  • "widely spaced bays" – ditto.
• East and west
  • "octagonal in shape" – "in shape" seems unneeded.
  • "supported by columns" – not clear if this is the one or all three.
• Grounds and garden
  • "The grounds form part …. there are more than 60 words in this sentence, and I got lost mid-way and had to start again. Could you break it up?
  • "The fir trees on the grounds" – "on" seems odd. Perhaps "in"?
• Legends
  • "An alternative theory – "theory" seems rather a dignified word for a cock-and-bull tale. Perhaps just "story"?

Those are my few quibbles. Nothing to frighten the horses. Over to you. I shan't bother putting the article on hold. – Tim riley (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for the prompt review, I've addressed your points. Yes, Eric has very high standards for GAs which is a good thing as it often means they're on course for FA! I'm glad I waited on this. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

One or two things remain that I might mildly quibble at if the article comes to FAC, but no question about its GA credentials. Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

GA

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

As I suspected, an easy task for the reviewer. Nothing borderline about this article. It gives me much pleasure to promote it. Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. As you say, it still needs a bit of polishing before it's ready for FAC, so we won't be rushing off there. Eric Corbett 17:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it isn't quite ready for FAC yet but clearly has potential, and hopefully Yngva can find some more details over the next few weeks. Thanks for the review Tim!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)