Talk:Burnt Norton (house)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 09:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will pick this up. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article is a long way from meeting any one of the GA criteria.
The article contains copyright violations.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is unstable.

I'm afraid this is going to be a Quick Fail, on Criterion 2. There are other issues; the prose is short and choppy, with single-sentence paragraphs and some basic grammatical errors (missing full stop). The tone is also a little 'dramatic'; "In time the mistress deserted him", "little was left of him to be buried". Sentences beginning, "It was also proposed", beg the question, by whom? But most critically, it is not comprehensive, and I think it contains factual errors. Firstly, Burnt Norton House is not "abandoned, partially destroyed", as Source 5 clearly shows. It is a home of Conroy Ryder, 8th Earl of Harrowby, and his wife, the author Caroline Sandon. Second, the article talks of "the remains" of the building being located in Hidcote Manor Garden. Neither Source 5 or Source 6 appears to support this claim, and Hidcote is about 4 miles from Aston Sub Edge. More crucially, neither Pevsner (Verey/Brooks, 2000, p=148), nor Historic England's entry for Burnt Norton House [1] support the suggestion. I think there is some kind of mix up here. Thirdly, much of the history of the house is missing - e.g. no mention of the extensive reconstruction by Guy Dawber. Fourth - I think some basic sources, particularly Pevsner and HE, would be required in a comprehensive article about the building. Fifth, there's no description at all. Sixth, the references are missing some basics; authors/dates/publishers.

All in all, I'm afraid it is some way from being of Good Article standard. I'm sorry if this is discouraging, and wish the nominating editor all the best in their efforts to continue to develop it. KJP1 (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Apologies for the late reply and thanks for taking the time to review this article. I've been unable to access some of the sources needed to expand the article in the ways you suggested so if you could help me in that regard as well that would be appreciated. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prisencolin - No worries. I can certainly help with some sources. As a start, can you say what sources you’re using that say the ruins of Burnt Norton are in the grounds of Hidcote Manor? I’m not seeing this in any of the sources I’ve looked at? KJP1 (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main review

1. It is well written.

a (prose):

b (MoS):

2. It is verifiable with No Original Research.

a (references)

b (citations to reliable sources)

c (OR)

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations)

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects)

b (focused)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

5. It is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail: