Talk:Swakeleys House/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. Please fix consumption as a disamb. link. No. invalid external links.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The heading "Ownership" is a bit confusing since you do trace the ownership of the former house in the prior section. Can you think of a better heading, such as "Subsequent ownership"?
- "formed Swakeleys House Ltd and purchased"->"formed Swakeleys House Ltd to purchase" - did not the new corporation purchase the house?
- "25 year lease"->"25-year lease"
- These have been changed as you have suggested.
- a (prose):
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Do you need to repeat the busts of Lord Essex and Lord Fairfax both in the prose and in the quote?
- Was there any particular inspiration for the design of the house? Did it represent any design innovation, other than preserving the prior dining room paneling?
- Was Swakeleys House Ltd a for-profit or a non-profit venture? Is the current owner a for-profit or a non-profit entity?
- Are the current garden/grounds maintained in their historic manner? (Or did they pave a lot of it for office parking?)
- I thought that mentioning the busts could serve as something of a translation. Would you prefer that the mention in the prose is removed? The sources I have read do not mention any design inspiration for the house, other than it was built to the design Sir Edmund Wright approved of. Swakeleys House Ltd was not-for-profit though little is known of the new owners. There isn't even any record of their name.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Thank you for contributing the photos. It would be helpful if the captions described the view, for example "driveway approaching Swakeleys House from the south."
- I've changed the caption in the way you have suggested.
- Thank you for contributing the photos. It would be helpful if the captions described the view, for example "driveway approaching Swakeleys House from the south."
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
You can certainly continue to polish the article because it has FAC potential. Currently, it meets the GA criteria. Congratulations! Racepacket (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)