Talk:Jewel Tower/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The overall article is excellent written. Here is a list of minor sentence or grammar errors I discovered.

1. "The Jewel Tower is a surviving 14th-century element" - This sentence should be written like this "The Jewel Tower is a 14th-century surviving element".

2. "The Jewel Tower continued as the Lords' records office through the 18th century" - Instead of continuing to write "The Jewel Tower" after the second mention consider simply writing "the tower" until the next section, but this is just a suggestion.

3. "William of Sleaford was put in charge of the tower project as a whole; William was the clerk and surveyor of the King's works within the Palace of Westminster and the Tower of London" - When his full name is stated, refer to him by his last name so as not to confuse him with the other Williams mentioned in the article.

4. "as part of a wider renovation of the tower at a cost of £166" - Interesting, but consider mentioning in a paragraph what todays equivalent of £166 in 1600 instead of having a note.

5. "providing better fire protection than the original wooden ceiling, by Thomas Hicks at a cost of £6" - Here a paragraph that states todays equivalent would also be nice. This goes for all times the cost of something is mentioned.

6. "later titled 6-7 Old Palace Yard" - Do we know if the name is correctly spelled in words or numbers? Per WP:NUMERAL, all numbers between 1-9 should be written in words.

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

This article uses book sources linked with Harvard references and online sources such as English Heritage, all of which is acceptable. However, five books list under "Bibliography" does not contain ISBN numbers. The books are not too old for an ISBN number, and you can find author name, book title, year of release, and publishing house, you should be able to find the ISBN numbers.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article is very broad in its coverage, addresses the main topics and does not go into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral and does included personal opinions or statements.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is fairly stable and its content does not change significantly from day to day (with exceptions of those edits made in preparation for the GA-nomination).

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

This article is very illustrated with a total of 12 images, all of which are uploaded and from Commons and contain the necessary copyright/information text.

• Pass, fail, or hold?

With the article meeting the GA-criteria and the points made in the "Well-written" section being minor issues or suggestions, I'm going to pass it. Good job. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009 , I'd appreciate if you look over and respond to those few points mentioned in the "Well-written" section. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, I might address one of the points made above, namely #6: 6-7 Old Palace Yard is indeed written this way, which shouldn't cause any surprise considering that it's an address (Old Palace Yard used to be a residential street). Waltham, The Duke of 21:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)