Talk:Whitefriars, Bristol/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is quite a compact article, so it should not take long to review. At this stage I will be mostly concentrating on "problems", if any; and I've leaving the WP:Lead until last. So, if a section is OK, I may not comment on it here (but there will be an overall summary at the end). Pyrotec (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• History -

• Ref 2 is a chapter from a book that just happens to be online (its part of the Victoria County History). It has an author, a book title, a chapter title, and page numbers; which are not quoted in the citation. I suggest that the {{cite book}} or {{cite}} template is used, together with the (valid) url link.

• OK, I have fixed that. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Post-dissolution -

• I'm a bit uncertain as to what is being said here. "Site" appears to have two different meanings. I think in the first use "site" refers to that occupied by the Friary; and in the second use "site" refers to that occupied by the Great House.
• I also know that the Colston Hall had a bit of a make over. Is the new bit still on the original Friary site, or has the "boundary" been shifted (perhaps, you don't know, but this should be clarified)?

• The friary and gardens occupied a large area, unfortunately I don't have the exact size. I hope I have clarified by my edits and additions. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• As always, this is both an introduction to, and a summary of, the main article. Its got the Great House, which has gone and been replaced, but not the Lodge which is still there as a museum; and no mention of the "transference" of the name to a modern nearby building.

• I have expanded the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Once these, minor, points have been addressed, I'll be happy to award GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to review and your useful comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A short but well referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Only a "location map" provided.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Only a "location map" provided.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this GA-status. Congratulations on producing another "Bristol GA". Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)