Talk:Hestercombe House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll do the usual - make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

this ref mentions the fire brigade leasing it in 1953 and it falling into disrepair around this time - helps with chronology and should be added.

Para 3 of House section has no references.

Last sentence of that section looks lonely all by itself - can it be put onto a para or expanded?

Gardens section has several small paras that could be joined I think.

First sentence of para 3 in lead shouldn't start with "It.."

I get the impression the article needs a bit more filling out material-wise - it just comes across as a bit brief but I can't put my finger on what's missing....

More later.

I've had a go at some of the suggestions above and will await more. There is more on the garden in the German wikipedia, but I've looked at it (with google translate) and can't really see which other details should be included.— Rod ^talk 19:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Right - that is interesting. This article needs a location like in the German one.

garden section needs expanding - info on Dutch Garden for starters - and some on key plant species used. Some of the German article veers a little too much into general info about Jekyll/Luytens but not much.

I've had a go - can you take another look and see if you think I have included enough?— Rod ^talk 09:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's looking better...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Describing Penelope Hobhouse as a "garden writer, designer, lecturer and television presenter" seems a bit effusive - can't we just use 1-2 descriptors?

I took that from our article about her - shortened to "garden writer and designer".— Rod ^talk 14:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I just left a couple of tags - one would be good for the view but I suspect that may be hard...yet is obvious?

I've added some more (including one for the view).— Rod ^talk 08:42, 14 June 2014 (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: - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)