Talk:Tyntesfield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 01:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): See Talk:Tyntesfield/Archives/2014#Potential close paraphrasing and copyright violations created after I started the more thorough review. As I said on that page, it seems to indicate the need for a thorough review before I proceed. I hope you hang in there for that - it's a good article. As a minor issue, I'm wondering about the notability of the badger information, but that might be resolved with a reliable, secondary source. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The lead looks good to me. I was wondering if it might be good to make mention of the world war impacts, particularly World War II. I added a question about merging History and Owners sections. There's a couple of places to address tone and word more concisely/clearly, but I personally think they are slight and will work on once the citation issues are resolved and I dive into the more thorough line-by-line to sources review. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): There are some statements that are not cited. see the {{citation needed}} tags within the body of the article. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] b (citations to reliable sources): Citations from Exeter memories, thepeerage.com and blogs have been tagged for better sources. Done It would be good to resolve the dead links. See WP:DEADREF. Done There were some citations that linked to "thisisSomerset" and "thisisBristol" - those citations were updated with the correct links and publishers.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Good coverage of history, architecture, National Trust b (focused): There's good coverage of the history, owner's history and present ownership by the National Trust, without going into unnecessary detail, such as not going into more detail than was necessary in the owners' biographical information. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. 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): There's one image File:Tyntesfield1866.jpg that has a {{PD-Art}} parameter issue that would be nice to resolve. Overall, though, the article has a nice collection of images, no fair use rationales were needed / are free use, and have good descriptive captions. Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Pass/Fail: to resolve phrasing issues.
· · ·

There are enough citation needed, dead links and better source tags that it makes sense to wait and see the response to my edits here, with a few intermittent edits that I agree with by another user, before proceeding now with the thorough analysis of the text to sources and written text. You may want to consider the comments about World War II summary in the lead and the badger section.--05:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There's two more topics I'd like to bring up:

1) Should the history and owners sections be merged? It seems like it would flow a bit better if it they were merged.

2) There's some detail that I generally put in notes (i.e., interesting but does not necessarily further the subject's story.) One example is the "The initial conservation work focused around..." bullets. It would seem that could be rolled up into a summary and the number of feet / miles comments put in a note. Another potential are the details in the National Trust purchase section. It would seem that potential buyer info, etc. would be better in notes.--05:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I updated the 1 b. "section" information re: proposal to merge history and owners sections.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of issues

Better source - Exeter Memories, I see is Done
Better source - thepeerage.com, I see is Done
Better source - blogs Done
Citation needed tags Done
Deadlinks Done
Comments about joining history and owners - added to article talk page, Talk:Tyntesfield
Comments about paring down / putting some of the detail info in notes - added to the article talk page
Comments about the badger section Done / removed, unless someone finds a reliable source
See Talk:Tyntesfield/Archives/2014#Potential close paraphrasing and copyright violations regarding items found in a review of 2 sources, which seems to indicate the need for a thorough review of all source content to article content.

I hope that there is interest in hanging in through the changes. The article has come a long way and it's got great bones, just needs some work on a few outstanding source issues and rephrasing. Any additional thoughts about the veracity of my statements or things I may have missed are welcome!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, need to make updates consistently throughout the review box, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fixed {{PD-Art}} parameter on an image, marked it done in the review box.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. The close paraphrasing issues have been resolved in the web pages. There are issues with content to pdf sources. Only able to verify one book, and that required changes to content + page numbers. I stepped in to help move the review of the webpages, but am going to go back to my original statement of January 21 that there needs to be a thorough source to content validation. Please let me know when that's been done and I'll step back in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say exactly what you mean by "a thorough source to content validation"?— Rod ^talk 21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The web sites are good to go now, and it's likely that now all that can be done regarding the books has been done. I think all that remains now is the pdfs. I was surprised by the disconnect between what attributed content and the sources, as was mentioned on the talk page. Of five or six sentences first checked from Terry and Wright all of the sentences had an issue. So, I think it would be wise to go through and double-check the attribution of the pdf files. Once that is done, we should be good to go.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been through Wright & Steven (Terry is 1st name) & moved them to the bibliography & used sfn to show page numbers. There were a few items not completely supported by those sources for which I've now added other citations.— Rod ^talk 15:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great! I'll do some minor spot-checking!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. I'm not sure why so many pdf citations went away... the only point was to ensure that the sources had the cited content... So, we might have had a misunderstanding. Anyway, the article looks really good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]