Talk:Beechwood House, Highgate
Latest comment: 7 years ago by TheMagikCow in topic GA Review
 | Beechwood House, Highgate was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 1, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Beechwood House, Highgate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TheMagikCow (talk · contribs) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I will take this one on. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Review:
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | No issues here; very good clear writing style. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | See below comments section. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No unnecessary detail. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Non free use image has the detailed fair use rationale. ALl good under the relevant policies. |
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | I am leaving this neutral for time time being; can we provide a more modern image perhaps? I understand that the house is private etc, so this may not be reasonable and would not be a ground for failure, I believe. Nonetheless, I think that if we can get a more up-to-date image this should be included. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Falied for reasons explanied in comments sections TheMagikCow (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC) |
Additional Comments:
- I am using the GA criteria, as well as these articles - Beaumont House, Camak House and Cushing House to use as a reference.TheMagikCow (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Missing elements:
- The Historic England reference makes mention of how it is Grade II listed, but there is no such mention in the text. This is a notable - even lead - worthy fact. You may also be able to pull up some more listed building related sources. Camak House has a great section on historic status.
Not done
- There is still not enough information of what this means and the implications of being listed. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- The lead is slightly underdeveloped. See the three examples put - some sections to add would be about the style and status. WP:MOSLEAD has some great ideas too.
- Not done
- The last paragraph described the planning applications, but does not give a result. This is important information. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not done
- Although not essential, an infobox, probably the {historic site} one, will be very favourable. Per WP:INFOBOXUSE, they are neither required nor prohibited, but I feel that to achieve the comprehensive status that the GAC places, and infobox would be desirable. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Done I have done this for you. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I will place this on hold (
GA on hold) for 7 days, and will see if these comments are addressed. If they are done sooner, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, and I will gladly have another look over. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I am closing this now as these comments have not been addressed in over 7 days. Feel free to sort these out and then renominate - give me a {{ping}} and I will sure have a look! TheMagikCow (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)