Talk:Romney's House/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Result: Kept as initial concern has been addressed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that this article does not meet criteria 3a as there is no significant description of the building. It is generally well-written and meets all of the other criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that it did require further expansion to justify GA status. I wrote on the talk page of User:No Swan So Fine some days before the review that I was going to review it myself, but ended up making some essential changes (expanded lead, infobox addition) and thus I couldn't really then review it afterwards. However, I felt (and still do) that there is an excessive use of direct quotes which to some extent could (and perhaps should) be paraphrased to make it seem more naturally written, otherwise it's just a section on something someone said, almost word for word.

In addition, the lead and infobox, whilst additions of mine, I still think are under-developed. I agree with the OP about there needing to be some in-depth information on the building itself, rather than predominently about the person it's apparently named after, who already has his own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope that you can work on it to bring it up to speed. I agree that the lede could use some more work, particularly on why the building was stormed, but I do think that the lack of a description is the biggest single problem. Perhaps looking at other existing GA building articles might be useful for ideas on what should be incorporated and how.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no personal interest in improving it myself - I merely made those few changes because I could see a very obvious omission, but then it wouldn't have been appropriate to review afterwards. I knew they weren't extensive enough that it would (or should) have passed GA on that alone, so I was surprised when someone did pass it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I'll let this sit for a while and see if anyone else has any interest in improving it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)-

It absolutely merits GA on notability grounds - owned by Romney and then Clough Williams-Ellis - so it would be a pity if it lost its status. I don't have access to my sources tonight, but will tomorrow. Let me see what I can do then. KJP1 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No rush, glad to see that you have the time and the sources to treat it as it deserves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited and re-ordered, and added such as I can for a description. Irritatingly, Reflinks is playing up tonight, so I cannot convert the bare URLs. Will try again tomorrow. Let me know what more you think it needs. KJP1 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this still an outstanding assessment or has a judgement been reached (keep GA/delist)? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - overlooked this. I'm hoping the additions were sufficient, but it not's my call, ultimately. KJP1 (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As this has now no activity since nearly a month ago and improvements have already been made, I am going to make a call and say the specific issue raised has been resolved. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)