Talk:Sutton Court

Sutton Court has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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.
Review: June 2, 2014. (Reviewed version).

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somerset Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

ISBNs

Please note several of the ISBNs are invalid - they should have 10 digits as of 2006. Rich Farmbrough 20:41 22 August 2006 (GMT).

Thanks for spotting this I think I've sorted them all now.— Rod ^talk 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What else is needed to get this article to GA quality?

What else do people think is needed to get this article to meet the Good article criteria?— Rod ^talk 17:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA Review is successful! Congratulations. TLSuda (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sutton Court/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking this review on and I look forward to reading this. I should have both my overall review and my prose review up shortly. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apologize. I do my reviews off-wiki and then copy them over. This time I must've forgot when I finished as I thought I already had. I'm just getting to it today. Thanks for your patience. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Some run-on sentences, some prose questions, see prose review below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
There are some places that are not sourced at all.

C. No original research:
Some unsourced places may be WP:OR. See below.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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 if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Needs some work. See the below prose review.

Prose review

Lead

Sutton Court is a large English house remodelled... "Large" is a meaningless word. You could include the type such as you did for the 15/16th century manor house.
The house is at Stowey...near to the villages of Bishop Sutton and Stowey. Is the house at Stowey or near the village of Stowey? Very confusing.
Over the centuries... What centuries? Since when?
This same sentence is a run-on sentence. Consider condensing the information or bringing to two full sentences.

History

The original tower or keep of a fortified house... Throughout the rest of the article you never mention "keep" so I would remove it from here.
Is the building originally a tower, or a tower that was part of a house? In the lead you mention the "14th century fortified tower" but here you wrote of it like it was part of a house.
A length of the original embattled wall survives. This is the first you mentioned of this wall. Is it relevant or notable? If so, what wall is this? We need more information.
...owned by the Protestant sympathiser Sir John St Loe, MP and High Sheriff of Somerset. "MP" whilst being common in your tongue, has very different meanings in other English-speaking cultures (including mine across the pond). I would suggest saying Member of Parliament, like you do later, at least this first time. If you wanted to shorten in for the remained of the article, that would be fine if you added (MP) after the first use.
Sir John St Loe was a fiend... A fiend or a friend?
This same sentence is a run-on sentence. Consider condensing the information or bringing to two full sentences.
John St Loe was buried in the local Church of St Andrew, Chew Magna. Was he buried in the church or at the church?
(probably poisoned by his younger brother) As that sentence is sourced to a hard source that I do not have access to, I cannot verify if that comes from the source. If it does, it needs to be spelled out who says that he was "probably" poisoned and the parenthesis need to be removed.
He introduced a theory of rock... is a run-on sentence. Consider condensing the information or bringing to two full sentences.
Life at Sutton Court has been described by John St. Loe Strachey in his autobiographical book The Adventure of Living in 1922. Is this relevant at all? It seems like it is a random sentence thrown in there. You could incorporate this information if you were saying that "John St Loe described ...blahblahblah... in his book...." but otherwise remove this sentence.
The last paragraph has no source and looks like original research. This needs to be sourced.

Architecture

The first paragraph has only one source listed. Where did this information come from? It looks like original research.
To the north of the servants wing are an old stables... remove "an"
These have now been converted into separate dwellings. Seems like original research without a source.
A curtain wall to the north of the house with a gazebo is also listed. I'm not from your side of the pond, but I believe this is in reference to a Listed Building. Can you clarify the sentence as such, maybe by saying it is also a Grade II Listed Building or something?

Estate

Tenant farmers leased the majority of the land and during most of the 20th it was used for dairy cattle, sheep and pigs. Add the word "century" after 20th.

Reference review

As the first three sources are all from the same website (just different pages) the references should all look the same.
Reference 6 should include the creation date of August 2003.
Reference 13 ISBN is 0393330133
Reference 14 ISBN is 0571056466
Is reference #18 a reliable source? I cannot tell because the page never loads for me.
References 25 & 26 are the same and should be combined.

Thanks for the review, no worries about speed I thought you might be busy after taking on the review. I have attempted to address the issues highlighted above. If there are other changes needed please let me know.— Rod ^talk 09:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Good job, and I am happy to promote this article to GA-status. Congratulations! TLSuda (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sutton Court. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081124213722/http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page1017.html to http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page1017.html

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) 20:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sutton Court. 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) 00:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]