Talk:Highgrove House, Eastcote/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 06:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Article issues

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I am not able to pass this article straight away because of a dearth of information about a number of key topics. There are several loose ends and I don't feel like the article is very well focused. I am hoping that there are more resources that can be drawn upon to help expand this article. Here are the major points:

• Why was the house granted Grade II status? What makes it special and of historic value?

A note has been added regarding this. Harrison49 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• There should be a better physical description of the house and holdings. Of the following list, not all of these need to be included if there is no information to be found, but surely there is some description available: How many floors are there? (I can't tell if there is a third story or if it is just an attic up there). How many rooms? Fireplaces? (I see two chimneys, are there more?) Square footage/meters or Height/length/width? How much lands (acres) were originally attached to the house and how many are there now?

Information relating to the construction materials, plans and current land total has been added. Harrison49 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why is the house no longer a homeless shelter? Who bought it and is developing/renovating it? Was there any controversy over closing the shelter? Was there another one to replace it? Similar questions could be raised for why it is no longer a nursing home.

Information relating to this has been added. Harrison49 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can any description be given as to the neighborhood it is in? Urban/suburban? Upper class/lower class? Luxury housing from homeless shelter seems like a big jump.

A note regarding the area has been added in the lead. Harrison49 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are other questions I have that may be used to expand the article if the information is available:

• As it has exchanged hands and gone from homeless shelter to nursing home and beyond, has the name always been the same or has it changed?
• There have been 3 separate fires, correct? Any more info on what caused them and what exactly was destroyed? An update on the suspected arsonists from 2010?

Minor notes:

• "Old people's home" is not an appropriate term. "Nursing home" or "assisted living facility" would be more appropriate.

Although this was how the source described it, I have changed it to "home for the elderly". Harrison49 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• You should state somewhere what exactly Grade II status is and how it has affected the use/development of the house since the time it was graded.

This has been added. Harrison49 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that with all the content that needs to be added, it may take a long time to get this article up to GA status. You may need to find additional resources to find more information. And once more information is found, you will likely need to form new sections, write new paragraphs and organize the content differently. For these reasons I will not pass this article. You are free to nominate the article again once improvements have been made. I hope you will make use of what I have written here to expand the article. I wish you luck! --Tea with toast (話) 07:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I have exhausted much of the available material relating to the house so should be able to add information where it is available very soon.

Certain points you have raised cannot be elaborated on, such as the 2010 arsonists as no further information was released.

With regard to some of the other points:

• The name of the company that bought the house to redevelop it is within the article already - Westcombe Estates.

• From the information I have available, the house has never changed names, other than to be interchangeably known as High Grove and Highgrove House.

• It is referred to as an old people's home by the source I used, although I can change that.

• The change from a homeless shelter to a luxury housing block was not as dramatic as you may think. Although it was known as a homeless shelter, this was mainly for families rather than individuals living rough.

I'll get to work and hopefully this can pass soon. Harrison49 (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Final Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am impressed by the amount of work that has gone into improving this article is such a short period of time. Thank you for addressing the points I had listed earlier. I much appreciate the work that has been done. Good work! --Tea with toast (話) 02:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you very much for your reviews. Harrison49 (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)