Talk:Woodspring Priory/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Will have this one to you within 24 hours. At a first glance, the article looks comprehensive and well-written so the review shouldn't be long. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Initial comments
[edit]Lead
[edit]- The lead summarises the article well and meets the GA criteria and WP:LEAD. I would have suggested to change the opening sentence so that it reads out where Woodspring Priory is located, for example Woodspring Priory (originally Worsprynge or Worspring) is a former Augustinian priory situated in North Somerset or something similar to that. But the lead is fine.
History
[edit]- Some parts of this section feel too trivial, however it won't affect the GAN. I noticed one for example "Major and Mrs Hill continued to own the priory until 1928" - how about something like "The Major and his wife"?
- However the history section is informative, in depth and mostly well-written so this meets the GA criteria.
References
[edit]- The first reference appears to be broken
- https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/account/subscribe?nextpage=%2Fviewer%2Fbl%2F0000221%2F18970121%2F030%2F0003&gift=false Ref 18] and ref 19 appear to go nowhere as well
Close - promoted
[edit]Despite some sentences in the article feeling trivial and a couple of references that lead to nowhere - I think that this article already meets the GA criteria. It is broad in coverage, mostly well-written and well referenced. Because the concerns I have listed aren't really that important I feel it won't be necessary to put this on hold, so I'll promote this one! Well done on another Somerset GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)