Talk:Manor Farm, Ruislip/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A couple of spots where the prose isn't quite clear

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A couple of spots that need citation

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A couple of spots where there is too much detail on non-relevant subjects as well as a couple of spots where the sources have differeing statments and those need to be brought out in the article

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   the lead image is pretty dark and would profitably be replaced with another in the article

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Images:
  • The infobox image is ... useless. Since the shadows are so dark, all you can see of the barn is a big black shape. Suggest exchanging this image for others.
• Lead:
  • Suggestion from a medievalist - don't date it from the "norman dynasty" unless a member of the dynasty built the fort. Instead use "shortly after the Norman Conquest" or something similar. Anglo-Norman period also works.
  • First sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is convoluted. Suggest breaking it down into two or three sentences. "with whom they remained" is especially awkward and needs rephrasing.
• Origins:
  • Do they REALLY call it a motte-and-bailey FORT? Usually that's a castle. (And you call it that in one caption - so it needs to be consistent.) Also - the Hillingdon site says it's PRE-Norman, this needs to be mentioned as either a minority opinion or shown that it's wrong.

This seems to be a mistake on the part of Hillingdon Council. Their detailed history page says, "In Norman times the area continued as the centre of the district, with the erection of a small motte and bailey castle." Harrison49 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• • "The fort is believed to have been built between 1066 and 1087, but does not appear in the 1086 Domesday Book and so could have been demolished or changed significantly." is opinion and needs citing.
  • Need to note that Bec Abbey was in Normandy.
  • "The farm buildings date back to the 13th century with the Great Barn, the second largest such structure in Middlesex after another in Harmondsworth,[6] the most prominent." is awkward - suggest rewording to eliminate the long digression in the middle.
• Ownership:
  • "Following a town planning competition won by the Soutars, town planners from Wandsworth, Manor Farm and Park Wood were almost demolished to make way for new development." awkward. I got lost in the dependent phrases here - does it matter where the town planners were from? Suggest cutting that detail.
  • There's a big gap between the 1914 approval and the 1930 saving... what happened then? Were efforts made to save the structures? Did any of the planned houses get built?
  • Large chunks of the fourth paragraph about the sale isn't about the manor at all (unless the manor includes the woods - in which case this needs to be made more clear). Suggest culling unneeded details about other structures.
  • "That year, Council T. R. Parker..." Is his name REALLY Council? Or is it "Councilman" as a title?
• External links:
  • Sites used as references shoudlnt' be listed in the external links.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I have made the changes based on the suggestions you have made. How does it look now? Harrison49 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, passing now! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Harrison49 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)