Talk:Brislington House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Fox classified the patients at Brislington House.. - would prefer a different verb to "classified" - maybe "sorted"?

I think the key point is that he thought the different classes (which were very narrowly defined) should be treated differently - hence the different blocks. I've changed classified to divided but I think it needs to be stronger than sorted as this was a key component of the way the place worked, and even the design of the building.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, divided is better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

WRT comprehensiveness, the segment about Perceval and the book is interesting. If there is anything more specific to Brislington House in the book it'd be good to add - any more of his reflections etc.

I've not been able to identify anything further. He was complaining/campaigning about mental health care in general in the era & used Brislington House as an example as he had been a patient there.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ditto the one line on Frank Miles - a bit tantalisingly chopped-off - any extra info would be good.

I did have a bit more ie " He was cared for by his brother, the clergyman Charles Oswald Miles, but died in 1891 of what was diagnosed as 'general paralysis of the insane', often a term for neurosyphilis, exhaustion and pneumonia." but this was removed at DYK review as I could find any sources to support it.— Rod ^talk 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, this one's pretty tight and on track for GA. Nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

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

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

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, well done. sorry re delay, busy day.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)