Jump to content

Talk:History of Brasenose College, Oxford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHistory of Brasenose College, Oxford has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 6, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 18, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the decision in 1974 to admit women was a key event in the history of Brasenose College, Oxford?


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Brasenose College, Oxford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Foundation and early history -
    • untitled subsection -
  • The second paragraph is discussing both Stamford and Oxford. I suspect that The Brasenose knocker was taken with them as a symbol of continuity, and .... is referring to Stamford, but the previous sentence seems to be about Oxford. It needs to be clarified where the knocker was taken.

Pyrotec (talk)‎ 20:59, 28 September 2012(UTC)

    • Foundation -
  • A minor point, but in the first paragraph there are inconsistent date formats, i.e. .... 1 June 1509 that the foundation stone for Staircase I was laid.[9] It was not until January 15, 1512....; and there are two short sentences starting: It was on.....
  • It's unclear in the final paragraph what Entrants to the college would have been only 11 or 12, with an intake ... is intended to say. I assumed that it was saying 11 or 12 years old, but it could be taken to mean 11 or 12 entrants.
  • Seventeenth century -
  • Looks OK.
  • Eighteenth century -
  • Looks OK.
  • Nineteenth century -

....stopping at this point, to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regency period -
  • Looks OK.
    • Victorian period -
  • The first sentence in the first paragraph is hanging, His successor in 1842 was Richard ..., presumably this was Ashurst Turner Gilbert's successor?
  • The fourth paragraph talks about a Royal Commission of 1851 without a wikilink or explanation. Wikipedia does have an article on the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 but it does not seems to have any relevance here.
  • The following paragraph refers to a second Royal Commission without providing any explanation, or dates.
  • First half of the twentieth century -
    • unnamed first subsection & Inter-war period -
  • These two subsections look OK.
    • Second World War -
  • I suspect that the second sentence Once again, union was Lincoln was discussed: ... should read with instead of was? But what is Lincoln, as the rest of the sentence talks about Brasenose and Christ Church (Note: presumably Lincoln college, as that name appears in the Victorian period subsection)?
  • Second half of the twentieth century & Twenty-first century -

....stopping at this point, to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • These two sections look OK.
  • Looks OK.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. A few minor points need to be addressed, but I would anticipate awarding GA-status quite soon. Pyrotec (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all done now; we don't have articles on the Royal Commissions so I've done my best to explain as concisely as possible. It is a little messy now, but understandable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

A well referenced and well illustrated article that has the potential of becoming a candidate at WP:FAC. I'm delighted to be award this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of Brasenose College, Oxford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]